TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Benjamin I. Nosiri
Docket Number: 23365-13SL
Judge: Marvel
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/16/2014
Pages: 10

Sw6=MARvf) UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 BENJAMIN I. NOSIRI, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 23365-13S L ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings in the above case before Judge L. Paige Marvel at Atlanta, Georgia, on November 21, 2014, containing the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) L. Paige Marvel Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. December 16, 2014 SERVED DEC 1 8 2014 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by Judge L. Paige Marvel November 21, 2014 Benjamin I. Nosiri v. Commissioner Docket No. 23365-13SL 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. THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 10 OTHER CASE. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended (Code), and Rules 170 through 174 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references made in this bench opinion are to the Code, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company Petitioner Benjamin I. Nosiri appeared pro 4 se. Ashley Y. Smith appeared on behalf of respondent. Pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to file a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) with respect to petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005. T e issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner was entitled to challenge the merits of the underlying Federal income tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005, and (2) whether respondent's Appeals Office abus d its discretion in sustaining the filing of the NFTL for 2004 and 2005. Facts On January 15, 2008, respondent issued to petitioner at his last known address a notic of deficiency for 2004 and 2005. Although the ecord does not reveal whether petitioner actually received the notice of deficiency, petitioner does no assert, and did not testify, that he did not receive it and we therefore infer that he did. Petitioner c id not petition this Court with respect to the notide of deficiency dated January 15, 2008. On February 22, 2010, respondent issued to petitioner a noti e of his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 intent to collect petitioner's 2004 tax liability by levy. Petitioner requested a section 6330 hearing, and respondent issued a final determination on November 12, 2010, sustaining the proposed levy. 5 Petitioner did not petition this Court with respect 6 7 8 to the notice of determination dated November 12, 2010. On March 18, 2011, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of his intent to collect 9 petitioner's 2005 tax liability by levy. Petitioner 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 did not request an administrative hearing. By reason of the above, petitioner had multiple opportunities to dispute the underlying tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005 before respondent mailed to petitioner the notice of determination at issue here. On November 6, 2012, respondent filed a NFTL for 2004 and 2005 and sent notice of the filing of the NFTL to petitioner. Petitioner timely requested a section 6320 hearing. On July 15, 2013, Settlement Officer Gail Dickerson scheduled petitioner's 6320 hearing for August 6, 2013. Settlement Officer Dickerson asked petitioner to submit a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Individuals; a copy of his 2012 Federal income tax return; and proof of sufficient income tax 25 withholding or estimated tax payments for 2013 prior 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 to his hearing. Neither petitioner nor his representative called Settlement Officer Dickerson on August 6, 2013. Settlement Officer Dickerson subsequently held a section 6320 hearing for petitioner on August 13, 2013. During his section 6320 hearing the only issue petitioner raised was a challenge to the underlying liabilities for 2004 and 2005, which petitioner insisted he did not owe. However, Settlement Officer Dickerson refused to consider the underlying liabilities because petitioner had prior opportunities to contest them. Additionally, because petitioner failed to submit any financial documentation, Settlement Officer Dickerson could not consider petitioner's eligibility for a collection alternative even if petitioner had requested one, which he did not. On September 9, 2013, respondent issued a notice of determination to petitioner, sustaining the filing of the NFTL, for 2004 and 2005. Petitioner does not dispute any of the factual representations in the notice of determination. 23 Discussion 24 25 Section 6321 imposes a lien on all property and property rights of a taxpayer liable for taxes 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 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 where a demand for the payment of the taxes has been made and the taxpayer fails to pay. The Internal Revenue Service is authorized to file an NFTL with respect to taxpayers who have outstanding tax liabilities and fail to pay after notice and demand. Sec. 6323. Section 6320(a) requires the Secretary to send written notice to the taxpayer of the filing of an NFTL and of the taxpayer's right to an administrative hearing on the matter. The conduct and scope of section 6320 hearings are governed by section 6330(c),(d) (other than paragraph (2)(B)), (e), and (g). Sec. 6320(c). At a section 6320 hearing, the taxpayer may raise any relevant issue, including appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection action, and collection alternatives. Sec. 6330(c)(2) (A). The taxpayer may also dispute the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability, but only if the taxpayer did not receive a notice of deficiency and did not have a prior opportunity to dispute the liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604,609 (2000). Following the section 6320 hearing the Appeals Office must determine whether the filing of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 the NFTL should be sustained. In making that determination the Appeals Office must (1) verify that the Commissioner followed all applicable laws and administrative procedures, sec. 6330(c)(1), (3)(A);(2) consider all relevant issues raised by the taxpayer at the hearing, sec. 6330(c)(2) and (3)(B); and (3) consider whether the proposed collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes 9 with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer that any 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C). Pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), we have jurisdiction to review the Appeals Office's determination. See Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301,308(2005), aff'd, 469 F.3d 27 (1°' Cir. 2006). Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we review the determination regarding the underlying tax liability de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 610. Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, we review the Appeals Office's determination for abuse of discretion. Id. In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we must uphold the Appeals Office's determination unless it is arbitrary, capr1clous, or 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 1 without sound basis in fact or law. See, e.g., 2 Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C at 320. However, we 3 4 are not limited to the administrative record in reviewing the Appeals Office's determinations. See 5 Robinette v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 85, 101(2004), 6 7 rev'd, 439 F.3d 455 (8° Cir. 2006). The parties stipulated that respondent 8 mailed a notice of deficiency for 2004 and 2005 to 9 petitioner and the record clearly establishes that 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 the notice of deficiency was mailed by certified mail to petitioner's last known address. Petitioner does not contend that he did not receive the notice or that he timely petitioned this Court in response to it. Moreover, even assuming that petitioner did not receive the notice of deficiency, petitioner had additional opportunities to contest the underlying tax liabilities in administrative hearings with respect to notices of intent to levy that respondent 19 mailed to petitioner with respect to the unpaid 2004 20 21 22 23 24 25 and 2005 liabilities. Accordingly, petitioner is precluded from challenging the underlying tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005 in his section 6320 hearing and in this proceeding. See sec. 6330(c)(2) (B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 609, see also Lewis v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 48, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61(2007); sec. 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. (providing that an opportunity to dispute liability "includes a prior opportunity for a conference with Appeals"). As to the abuse of discretion issue, petitioner failed to submit any of the requested financial information to Settlement Officer 8 Dickerson. In the absence of any financial 9 information and as reflected in the notice of 10 11 12 13 14 determination, Settlement Officer Dickerson verified that respondent met all legal and procedural requirements before filing the NFTL and she considered whether the filing of the NFTL properly balanced the need for efficient collection with 15 petitioner's concern that the collection action be no 16 more intrusive than necessary. In short, the notice 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of determination reveals that Settlement Officer Dickerson issued the notice of determination after doing what sections 6320 and 6330 required her to do. During the trial the Court expressed concerns about the lack of a detailed administrative record, which would have permitted the Court to confirm that all of the statutory requirements had been met. However, petitioner only contested the underlying tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005 and did 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 11 1 not provide any evidence that Settlement Officer 2 Dickerson abused her discretion in concluding that 3 4 5 6 7 8 respondent properly filed a NFTL. While we understand petitioner's challenge to the underlying tax liabilities, which is grounded in petitioner's argument that respondent incorrectly included in petitioner's income for 2004 and 2005 payments to a corporate entity that the entity reported on the 9 entity's filed tax returns for 2004 and 2005, this is simply not the time or the place to press that challenge as the Court is foreclosed by sections 6320(c) and 6330(c)(2) (B) from considering it. We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and, to the extent not discussed above, conclude that those arguments are irrelevant, moot, or without merit. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 9:58 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com