TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Antonio Lepore
Docket Number: 11698-11L
Judge: Morrison
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 05/30/2013
Pages: 13

T.C. Memo. 2013-135 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ANTONIO LEPORE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTEFNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11698-11L. Filed May 30, 2013. (cid:16)042 Matthew J. McBride, for petitionei. Alexandra E. Nicholaides and Alissa L. VanderKooi, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MORRISON, Judge: This case is 3efore the Court to review the 2011 determination by the IRS's Appeals Office to sustain the filing of a notice of federal tax lien against the property of thè petitioner, Antonio Lepore. The IRS filed the notice of lien to collect assessed trust fund recovery penalties for the 11 SERi/ED MAY 3 0 2013 -2- [*2] calendar quarters from the third quarter of 2001 through the first quarter of 2004. We review the determination of the Appeals Office pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1).1 Lepore contends that the Appeals Office erred because it did not permit him to contest his liability for the trust fund recovery penalties on which the assessments are based. A person who has received a Letter 1153 from the IRS has already had.an opportunity to contest trust fund recovery penalties, Pough v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 344, 349 (2010), and is barred from contesting the liabilities before the Appeals Office in the context of its determination to sustain the filing of a notice of federal tax lien, see sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). The issue to be decided is whether Lepore received the Letter 1153 that the IRS sent him in 2007. We hold that he did not receive the letter. FINDINGS OF FACT Lepore resided in Michigan when the petition was filed. On or about March 30, 2007, IRS Revenue Officer Antoinette Cooley sent a Letter 1153 advising Lepore of a proposed trust fund recovery penalty assessment under section 6672 for failure to collect and pay over employment taxes with 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 3- [*3] respect to employ'ees of TBD Group LLC for the 14>calendar quarters from- the third quartei. of 2001 through the,fourth quarter of 2004. The letter gave Lepore 60 days to appeal the proposed assessment It was mailed by certified mail to Lepore's home address in Troy, Mich gan. On April 3, 2007, it was received and signed for at the house by Lepore's 23-year old son: Leporeghimself never saw the detter and was not awäre of its arrival. Lepore did not appeal the proposed asséssment. . The IRS assessed the penalties for the 11 calendar quarters from the third qùarter of 2001 through the first quarter of 2004. .The record does not reveal whether the IRS assessed penalties for the other.three quarters referenced in the Letter 1153 . On November 30, 2010, the IRS sent Lepore a notice of federal tax lien filing with respect to the assessed penalt es for the 11 calendar quarters from the third quarter of 2001 through the first quarter of 2004. In response,.Lepore made a timely request for a collection-review hearing. In his request he gave the following explanation for his disagreement ivithithe:federal tax lien.filing: "I do not feel responsible for this. It was not riy job-and I cannot pay thisd' On April 11, 2011:the Appeals Office conducted a telephone hearing.with Lepore. On April 19, 2011, the Appeals Office mailed Lepore a notice of determination sustaining the notice of federal tax lien f ling. The notice of determination stated . [*4] that all legal and procedural requirements had been followed, that the issues Lepore had raised could not be considered, and that,the lien filing balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with concerns regarding the intrusiveness of the filing. In the part of the notice headed "Relevant Issued [sic] by the Taxpayer", the notice of determination stated that during the telephone hearing: (1) the Appeals Office had confirmed with Lepore that his son signed for the . Letter 1153 and (2) the Appeals Office had informed Lepore that the letter had been his opportunity to challenge his liability for the trust fund recovery penalties and that the Appeals Office would not consider his challenge to the liabilities. In the same part, the notice of determination also stated that during the telephone hearing: (1) Lepore claimed that he could not pay the trust fund recovery penalties, (2) the Appeals Office responded by asking him to provide financial . documentation showing his current financial condition, but (3) he had declined to do so. On May 17, 2011, Lepore filed a petition with this Court challenging the determination of the Appeals Office. .The Court held a trial in Detroit, Michigan, on the issue of whether Lepore had a prior opportunity to contest his liability for [*5] the assessed trust fund recovery per alties for the 11 calendar quarters from .5- the third quarter of 2001 through the first quarter of 2004.2 1. The Parties' Arguments . OPINION Lepore testified that he neither saw the Letter 1153 nor knew that it had been delivered to his house. He argues that under these circumstances he did not receive the letter: The IRS argues that Lepore's testimony is not believable. The IRS also argues that receipt of a Letter 1153 by a competent person at the last known address of the person to whom the letter is addressed constitutes receipt by the addressee and that therefore receipt f the Letter 1153 by Lepore's son constitutes receipt by Lepore himself. , 2. . Applicable Law a. The Section 6672 Penalty: Need for Preliminary Notice Section 6672 imposes a penalty for the willful failure to collect; account for, and pay over income and employment ta(es of employees. Mason v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 301, 321 (2009). The penalty is referred to as the "trust fund recovery penalty." Weber v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 348, 357 (2012). 2The trial was a partial trial. It cor cerned only one of the issues in the case. -6- [*6] Before the IRS may assess a trust fund recovery penalty, it must mail a preliminary notice (here, the Letter 1153) "to an address as determined under section 6212(b)", i.e., to the person's last known address (or deliver the notice in person), advising of the proposed assessment of a trust fund recovery penalty.3 Sec. 6672(b)(1); see Mason v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. at 322-323. The statute allows the IRS to choose between notification by mail to the person's last known address and in-person delivery. Mason v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. at 322-323. Thus, if the IRS mails the notification to the person's last known address, the notification requirement is satisfied even if the person did not actually receive the notice. kl During the 60-day period after the date of the Letter 1153, the person may appeal the proposed assessment and request a conference with the Appeals Office. See Rev. Proc. 2005-34, 2005-1 C.B. 1233, 1234-1235. If the person does appeal, the limitations period on assessment of the penalty will not expire until 30 days after the IRS's final determination regarding the appeal. Sec. 6672(b)(3)(B). b. Collection Procedure . Section 6321 imposes a lien for unpaid federal taxes, including the trust fund recovery penalty. See Conway v. Commissioner, 137 .T.C. 209, 214-215 . , 3An exception is made if the IRS determines that collection of the penalty is in jeopardy. Sec. 6672(b)(4). .. [*7] (2011) The federal tax lien arises when an assessment is made. Sec. 6322. . Section 6323 provides that the lien impcsed by section 6321 is not valid.against certain persons until notice of the lien is filed (cid:16)042 Section 6320(a) provides that, after the IRS has filed the required notice, the IRS must notify the taxpayer of the filing and of the taxpayer's right to request a collection-review hearing. Under sectio a 6320(a)(3)(B), a 30-day périod is provided during which the taxpayer may request the collectionareview hearing. If the taxpayer timely requests á collection -review hearing, the collection-review hearing is to be conducted by the Appea siOffice., and the.Appeals officer conducting it must verify_that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. Secs. 6230(b)(1), (c), 6330(c)(1). Section.6330(c)(2)(A) provides that the taxpayer requesting the collection- review hearing may raise "any relevant.issue" relating to-the unpaid tax or the IRS's collection action. Section 6330(c;(2)(B) provides that the taxpayer '.'may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying . tax liability" if the taxpayer did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such liability, or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute-it. Following the collection-review h aring the Appeals officer must determine whether the collection action s to proceed, taking into account the -8- [*8]: verifications the Appeals officer has made, the issues raised by the taxpayer at the collection-review hearing, and whether the collection action "balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the * * * [taxpayer]'that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary." Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C). We have jurisdiction to review such determinations. Sec. 6330(d)(1). Where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the-taxpayer is entitled to a de novo hearing in this Court. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Where the underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, we review the determination for abuse of discretion. Id. at 182. The determination by the Appeals Office was based on the legal conclusion that receipt of the Letter 1153 by Lepore's son constituted receipt by Lepore.. The standard of review is irrelevant when reviewing a conclusion of law, since whether our review is characterized as review for the abuse of discretion or "de novo" review, we must reject erroneous views of the law: See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990); United States v. Vasilakos, 508 F.3d 401, 409 (6th Cir. 2007); United States.v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540, 544 (6th Cir. 2005); Abrams v. Interco, Inc., 719 F.2d 23, 28 (2d Cir. 1983) (stating that it is not inconsistent with the abuse of discretion standard to decline to honor a purported exercise of discretion that is infected by an error of law); Kendricks v. . [*9] Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 75 (2005); Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003). As for the IRS's argur|1ent that Lepore actually received the letter personally, we accord no deference to this view of the facts because there is no evidence that such a view was relied an or held by the Appeals Office.4 3. Analysis5 Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that a taxpayer cannot challenge an underlying liability in a collection-review hearing, and therefore this Court cannot review that liability, if the taxpayer rece ved a notice of deficiency or otherwise had an opportunity to dispute the underl,ring liability Because the assessments against Lepore were trust fund recovery penalties, the IRS would not have issued. and mailed a notice of deficiency. Sec. 6212(a). The question is whether Lepore "otherwise * * * [had] an opportunity to dispute" the trust fund recovery penalty assessments. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). A;tual receipt of the Letter 1153 (which advises the taxpayer of the right to appe il the proposed assessmerit and request an 4Indeed, it may be questioned whether it is permissible to even entertain a factual view that was not adopted by the Appeals Office, the actions of which we are reviewing. See SEC v. Chenery Cor3., 318 U.S. 80, 93-95 (1943). Lepore did not raise this question. . , 5Neither party has raised any question concerning the burden of proof or burden of production in this case. See sec. 7491. Our findings are supported by the preponderance of the.evidence. See Martin Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 189, 210 n.16 (1998). -10- [*10] Appeals conference), unless avoided by the taxpayer's deliberate refusal to receive the letter, is generally required if that letter is,to be considered.as having provided a prior opportunity to dispute the underlying section 6672 liability. Mason v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. at 318. Lepore testified that he never saw the Letter 1153 or knew that it had arrived at his home. The IRS contends that we should not believe Lepore's testimony because he is untrustworthy. As evidence of Lepore's untrustworthiness, the IRS contends that Lepore falsely testified that he was current with his own tax obligations even though he had not filed his 2008 and 2009 federal income tax returns on time. We believe that Lepore did not mean to say he was current with his tax obligations when he .testified in May 2012. He meant that he had been current with his tax obligations as of April 2007, which is when the Letter 1153 had been sent. This claim is not belied by his failure to timely file his 2008 and 2009 federal income tax returns. We believe Lepore's testimony about the Letter 1153 for several reasons. First, Lepore credibly testified that he always responded to correspondence from the IRS (a point not disputed by the IRS) and that he would have responded to the Letter 1153 had he known about it. See id. at 318-319. Second, Lepore's son credibly testified that he did not give the Letter 1153 to his father personally and that he instead "threw" - 1- [*11] the Letter 1153 "somewhere" in th basement. Third, the basement was a multipurpose office space containing Le ore's desk, a desk for Lepore's other son (who had moved out of the house-a year arlier but still used the basement for office work), and the files of at least thre defunct businesses formerly owned or managed by Lepore or by Lepore s other sön. letter thrown in the basement therefore could have easily gotten lost. ourth, Lepore re~ceived a high volume of mail at his house-another reason the lett r could have gotten lost. Fifth, the son ' who received the Letter 1-153 did-not liv in the house when he,received it. He came to the house only.occasionally, per aps once or twice a week, to möw the laivn. He did not speak to his father freq ently. Therefore, there was.not a.casual opportunity for Lepore's son to mention hat a letter from the IRS had arrived.' For these reasons,we find that Lepore never aw the letter and that he was not otherwise notified of its arrival. We also conclude that he did not deliberately . contrive to avoid its receipt. See id. at 3 8. -The IRS. contends.that Lepore should be considered to have.received the. Letter 1153 because his son received the letter at Lepore's house. Receipttof a document by another person in the addre see's house is sufficient in other contexts. For example, the Federal Rul of Civil Procedure provide that a plaintiff filing a complaint in a U.S. Di(cid:0)541t ict Court dan validly serve the defändaut -12- [*12] by "leaving a copy * * * at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there". Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B). However, no similar rule has been set forth (in a regulation for, example), as a construction of section 6330(c)(2)(B). And apparently no court has adopted the theory of imputed receipt espoused by.the IRS in the context of section 6330(c)(2)(B).6 The IRS contends that the merit of its theory is that "[r]equiring personal service of Letters 1153 would be costly, time consuming, and inefficient" and would "greatly impair the Service's ability to assess the trust fund recovery penalty against liable taxpayers." But to make the notification required before assessing the trust fund recovery penalty, the IRS need only mail the Letter 1153 to the last known address of the person to be assessed. Sec. 6672(b)(1), (4); Mason v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. at 322-323. The IRS can assess the penalty without making personal service on the person. Id. The receipt requirement applies only to the letter's function to provide an opportunity to dispute the underlying liability, not its effectiveness as pre-assessment notice of the penalty. The IRS's imputed-receipt theory (as articulated.in this case) is 6In Bland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 20.12-84, slip op. at 18 n.105, the Court noted that the issues raised in that case did not require it to determine whether the acceptance of the Letter 1153 by the addressee's building receptionist constituted receipt by the addressee of the letter. ' ' [*13] therefore not compelled by the ne to facilitate the assessment of trust fund - 3- recovery penalties. Under the particular circumstances of this case, we hold that Lepore did not receive the Letter 1153. Because he did not have a prior opportunity to dispute his liability for the section 6672 penalties, we will remand this case to the Appeals Office for further proceedings to consider whether he is liable for the trust fund recovery penalties sought to be collected by the notice of federal tax lien filing. Arguments of the IRS not discussed here are meritless, moot, or irrelevant. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order will be issued.