TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Thu L. Tran
Docket Number: 16576-22SL
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/21/2023
Pages: 6

United States Tax Court Washington, DC 20217 THU L. TRAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 16576-22SL. ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is 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 trial in the above case before Chief Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 23, 2023, 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 appropriate Order and Decision will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge Served 06/21/23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bench Opinion by Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo 3 May 23, 2023 Thu L. Tran v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 16576-22SL THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Section references contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6330(d) proceeding is subject to the Small Tax Case provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 174. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority, and pursuant to section 7463(b) the decision entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. This case is now before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed March 21, 2023. A hearing was conducted on respondent's motion in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 23, 2023. Holly L. Dennehey appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. There was no appearance by or on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 behalf of petitioner. 4 Giving due regard to the representations contained in, and materials attached to respondent's motion, and taking into account statements made by respondent's counsel at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case, and for the following reasons, that respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law. Consequently, disposition of this case upon respondent's motion is appropriate. See Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 14 (1992) aff'd, 17 F.3d. 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The undisputed facts relevant to the resolution of respondent's motion are easily summarized. In a Notice of Determination dated June 9, 2022, a copy of which is attached to the petition (notice), respondent determined that a levy is an appropriate collection action with respect to petitioner's outstanding 2017 Federal income tax liability (underlying liability). The underlying liability was assessed in due course following the issuance of a notice of deficiency mailed to petitioner at his last known address on December 16, 2019. Respondent's records show that the notice of deficiency was properly mailed. The proper mailing of the notice of deficiency gives rise to a presumption of its receipt, and we proceed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accordingly, taking into account that nothing submitted by 5 petitioner challenges respondent's claim that the notice of deficiency was issued and properly mailed. By letter dated August 6, 2021, petitioner was advised that respondent intended to levy (proposed collection action) in order to collect the underlying liability. That letter also advised petitioner of his right to challenge that proposed collection action by requesting an administrative hearing, which he did. See sec. 6630(a) and (b). As it turned out, among the issues that could have been raised at the administrative hearing, see sec. 6330(c)(2), the only issue petitioner raised at the administrative hearing amounts to a challenge to the existence or the amount of the underlying liability. A fair reading of the petition filed in this case in response to the notice raises only similar issues. Petitioner submitted an unsigned 2017 return to respondent's settlement officer in support of petitioner's claim regarding the underlying liability. The settlement officer did not consider the document or the underlying liability because petitioner had received a notice of deficiency that gave rise to that liability. Instead, the settlement officer offered petitioner an installment plan, even though petitioner did not request an installment plan or any other collection alternative to the proposed levy, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but petitioner refused the settlement officer's offer. 6 Under the circumstances, there is really very little for the Court to decide. Petitioner does not seek an alternative to the proposed collection action, and, as respondent's motion correctly points out, petitioner is not entitled to challenge the underlying liability in this proceeding because he received a notice of deficiency with respect to that liability. See sec. 2 6330(c)(2)(B). Otherwise, and in all other respects, respondent has shown that the settlement officer who conducted the administrative hearing satisfied the procedural requirements imposed upon him by section 6330, and petitioner does not suggest otherwise. It follows that respondent's motion is well made and should be granted. In closing, we think it appropriate to note that the resolution of this matter says nothing about the merits of petitioner's claim that the underlying liability is overstated. To that end, and independent of this proceeding, petitioner is free to pursue whatever remedies might be available to him in an attempt to give effect to his claim regarding the underlying liability. He is also free to request other administratively available collection alternatives. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order and decision will be entered granting respondent's motion and allowing respondent to proceed with collection as 7 determined in the notice. This concludes the Court's bench opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25