TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Karl E. Stafford
Docket Number: 28897-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/10/2009
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 KARL E . STAFFORD , Petitione r V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No . 28897-07S . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at .Los Angeles, California, on March 18, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order and Decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . April 10, 2009 SERVED Apr 13 2009 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 Stafford v . Commissioner Docket No . : 28897-07 S 3 3 March 18, 200 9 4 I . 5 The Court has decided to render oral findings of 6 fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents 7 the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . The ora l 8 findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as 9 precedent in any other case . 10 II . 11 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case 12 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(f)(2) of the 13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 14 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d 15 Procedure . See and compare Rules 330 through 334 of the Tax 16 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 17 III . 18 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 19 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue 20 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t 21 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 22 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and unless 23 otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer to the 24 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule 25 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e it 4 4 1 Procedure . 2 IV . 3 Karl-E . Stafford (Petitioner) appeared on his own 4 behalf . Spencer Stowe appeared on behalf of Respondent . 5 V . 6 This case is before the Court on Respondent's 7 Motion For Summary Judgment, filed January 30, 2009 , 8 pursuant to Rule 121, and supplemented February 23, 2009 . 9 Petitioner resided in the State of California, at 10 the time that the petition was filed with the Cour t 11 VI . 12 The facts relevant to the disposition of 13 Respondent's motion are as follows : 14 In response to a final notice of intent to levy, 15 Petitioner filed with Respondent a Form 12153, Request for a 16 Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, requesting an 17 administrative hearing with Respondent's Appeals Offic e 18 regarding a proposed levy to collect Petitioner' s 19 outstanding income tax-related liabilities for 2001 and 20 2002 . In the Form 1215 .3, the only reason given by 21 Petitioner for disagreeing with the proposed levy was his 22 professed desire for a collection alternative, specifically, 23 an installment payment agreement . However, during the 24 administrative process, Petitioner never proposed a 25 collection alternative . Further, during the administrative Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 a 5 1 process, Petitioner never submitted a collection information 2 statement, nor did he file delinquent returns for 200 3 3 through 2006, as requested by Respondent's settlement 4 officer . 5 Ultimately, after Petitioner ignored th e 6 settlement officer's requests, Respondent's Appeals Office 7 sent Petitioner a notice of determination sustaining th e 8 proposed levy . 9 In response to the notice of determination, 10 Petitioner timely appealed to this Court . 11 Petitioner's imperfect petition contained no 12 substantive allegations . In his amended petition , 13 Petitioner alleged that he was under "a financial strain", 14 that he was "in the process of getting the back taxe s 15 filed", and that he needed more time "to resolve this matter 16 with the IRS A .S .A .P . " 17 As indicated, Respondent filed his Motion For 18 Summary Judgment on January 30, 2009 . Shortly thereafter, 19 by Order dated February 3, 2009, the Court ordered (1 ) 20 Respondent to provide transcripts of account for the years 21 in issue and (2) Petitioner to respond to Respondent' s 22 motion . 23 On February 23, 2009, Respondent filed a 24 supplement to his motion and complied with the Court's 25 Order . In contrast, the Court received no objection or Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 other response from Petitioner . 2 Pursuant to notice, Respondent's Motion Fo r 3 Summary Judgment, as supplemented, was called for hearing on 4 Tuesday, March 17, 2009, in Los Angeles, California . Both .5 Petitioner and counsel for Respondent appeared and wer e 6 6 heard . 7 VII . 8 Summary Judgment 9 Summary judgment is intended to expedit e 10 litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials . Fla . 11 Peach Corp . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 678, 681 (1988) . 12 Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any 13 part of the legal issues in controversy "if the pleadings, 14 answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any 15 other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if 16 any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material 17 fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter o f 18 law ." Rule 121(a) and (b) . 19 After carefully reviewing the record, we ar e 20 satisfied-that there is no genuine issue as to any material 21 fact, and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law . 22 Accordingly, we shall grant Respondent's Motion For Summary 23 Judgment, as supplemented . 2 4 25 VIII . Section 6330 generally provides that th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by levy unti l 2 the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an 3 administrative review of the matter (in the form of an 4 Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial 5 review of the administrative determination . See Davis v . 6 Commissioner , 115 T .C . 35, 37 (2000) ; Goza v . Commissioner, 7 114 T .C . 176, 179 (2000) . 8 Section 6330(c) prescribes the matters that a 9 person may raise at an Appeals Office hearing . In sum ; 10 section 6330(c) provides that a person may raise collection 11 issues such as spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the 12 Commissioner's intended collection action, and possibl e 13 alternative means of collection . Section 6330(d) provides 14 for judicial review of the administrative determination . 15 In the present case, Petitioner has raised n o 16 issue other than a collection alternative . However, 17 Petitioner never submitted a collection alternative to 18 Respondent's settlement officer, nor did he submit a 19 collection information statement or file delinquent returns 20 for 2003 through 2006 as requested by the settlemen t 21 officer . The fact that Petitioner may have brought some or 22 all of these documents with him to the hearing o n 23 Respondent's motion on March 17, 2009, in Los .Angeles does 24 not obviate the fact that Petitioner failed to furnish them 25 to Respondent's settlement officer during the administrative Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 stage of this case . 2 IX . 3 The Court uses an abuse-of-discretion standard in 4 reviewing the determination of Respondent's Appeals Office 5 that a taxpayer is not entitled to a collection alternative, 6 such as an installment payment agreement o r 7 offer-in-compromise . Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 8 610 (2000) ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-18 3 9 (2000) . In doing so, we have held that a determination that 10 a taxpayer is not entitled to a collection alternative does 11 not constitute an abuse of discretion if the taxpayer failed 12 to furnish requisite financial information to Respondent's 13 Appeals Office . See Orum v . Commissioner , 123 T .C . 1, 1 3 14 (2004) (the Commissioner is justified in not considering a 15 collection alternative such as an installment paymen t 16 agreement if the taxpayer fails to furnish current financial 17 information), affd . 412 F .3d 819 (7th Cir . 2005) ; Montgomery 18 v . Commissioner , 122 T .C . 1 (2004) (before any offer i n 19 compromise can be considered, the taxpayer must submi t 20 current financial information) . Likewise, we have held that 21 a determination that a taxpayer is not entitled to a 22 collection alternative does not constitute an abuse o f 23 discretion if the taxpayer was not currently in compliance 24 with Federal tax laws, .i .e ., had not filed all required tax 25 returns . See Ho v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2006-41 ; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 2 3 Collier v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-171 ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2003-183 ; Rodriguez v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2003-153 ; Londono v . Commissioner , 4 T .C . Memo . 2003-99 ; cf . Scharringhausen v . Commissioner , 5 T .C . Memo . 2008-26 . Other Federal courts have concurred in 6 this view . E .g ., Richter v . United States , 90 AFTR 2 d 7 2002-5998, 2002-2 USTC par . 50,607 (C .D . Cal . 2002) ; AJP 8 Mgmt . v . United States , 87 AFTR 2d 2001-347, 2001-1 UST C 9 par . 50,184 (C .D . Cal . 2000) ; TTK Mgmt . v . United States , 87 10 AFTR 2d 2001-350, 2001-1 USTC par . 50,185 (C .D . Cal . 2000) . 11 Here the record demonstrates that Petitione r 12 failed to furnish requisite financial information to th e 13 settlement officer and failed to file income tax returns for 14 at least 2003 through 2006 . Under these circumstances , 15 Respondent's Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in 16 concluding that Petitioner was not entitled to a n 17 installment payment agreement or other collection 18 alternative . 19 X . 20 Petitioner has failed to make a valid challenge to 21 the appropriateness of Respondent's intended collectio n 22 action or raise a spousal defense . Any such issue is now 23 deemed to be conceded . See Rule 331(b)(4) ("Any issue not 24 raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be 25 conceded .") . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 In the absence of a valid issue for review, w e 2 conclude that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter 3 of law sustaining the notice of determination . Accordingly, 4 we shall grant Respondent's motion and thereby sustain th e 1 0 5 7 8 determination of the Appeals Office permitting Respondent to proceed with collection by levy . XI . In sum, we shall enter an Order and Decision i n 9 which we shall . (1) grant Respondent's Motion For Summary 10 Judgment, filed January 30, 2009, and supplemente d 11 February 23, 2009, and (2) decide that Respondent may 12 proceed with collection for the taxable years 2001 and 2002, 13 as determined in the notice of determination date d 14 November 20, 2007, upon which notice this case is based . 15 XII . 16 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fac t 17 and opninon in this case . 18 (Whereupon, at 9 :05 a .m ., the bench opinion in the 19 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 20 21 22 23 / / 24 // 25 / / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888