TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Maury Vincent Perryman
Docket Number: 31189-15L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/10/2017
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MAURY VINCENT PERRYMAN, Petitioner(s), . v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 31189-1 5 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 herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Birmingham, Alabama, on January 25, 2017, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, the case will be remanded to respondent's Appeals Office and an appropriate Order will be issued. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 10, 2017 SERVED FEB 1 4 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke January 25, 2017 3 Maury Vincent Perryman v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Docket No. 31189-15L 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 other case. This opinion is rendered pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section references in this opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code. This case is before the Court after a trial based upon our jurisdiction to review timely filed petitions seeking review of notices of determination issued by Respondent pursuant to Sections 6330, after hearings concerning proposed collection action. The collection action in the present case involves a federal tax lien which was filed against the Petitioner. This case begins with an offer in compromise which was entered into between the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 Petitioner and Respondent for tax liabilities 2 3 beginning in 2002 and continuing from 2004 through 2007. This.offer in compromise provided a basis for 4 Petitioner to make periodic payments and avoid the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 collection action. However, the Petitioner failed to remain current in his tax obligations and the offer in compromise was revoked. As a result Respondent issued the notice of federal income tax lien for those same years, as well as for the year 2010. Petitioner timely requested the collection due process hearing pursuant to Section 6320(c) and Section 6330(c). The administrative file regarding that hearing is not in the file currently before the 15 Court. The facts before the Court are based upon a 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rather succinct stipulation of facts and the testimony of the Petitioner, Mr. Perryman. The parties have stipulated that the case originated with a notice of determination, which sustained the notice of federal tax lien in that the notice of determination was issued on November 10th 2015. The parties have also stipulated that Mr. Perryman resided in Alabama at the time he timèly filed his petition in this matter. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 1 Capital Reporting Company 5 The parties have also stipulated that the request for collection due process hearing was filed by Mr. Perryman on or about November 3rd, 2014. Because the administrative file was not available and was not placed in the record of this case, the only information before the Court about the circumstances of Mr. Perryman's hearing with the Appeals Office of the Internal Revenue Service concerning.the notice of determination which precipitated this case, is the testimony of Mr. Perryman. Mr. Perryman's testimony indicates that there was a series of miscommunications and failures both on his part and the Appeals Officer's part to actually have a full conversation about the merits in question. Given these circumstances and the ambiguity raised by Mr. Perryman's testimony about whether he was diligent in responding to the request for information from the settlement officer, we believe the best course of action in the present case is not to resolve this case at this time in favor of Respondent, but rather to remand the case back to the Appeals Division of the IRS in the hopes that a resolution can be reached and Mr. Perryman may be 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 6 1 able to enter into another installment agreement for 2 all of the outstanding tax liabilities he has. 3 4 5 We admonished Mr. Perryman on the record of the trial of this case and we repeat that warning here, that on the remand of the case Mr. Perryman 6 must be very proactive in responding to the Appeals 7 Officer and submit all the requested information in a 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 timely fashion and that he should follow up his correspondence with telephone calls and other actions, including subsequent correspondence if necessary to maintain an active level of communication with the settlement officer in the hopes of resolving this case. We also expect the Internal Revenue Service to be more dutiful in arranging communication with 16 Mr. Perryman and being very specific as to the 17 18 information the Internal Revenue Service expects to receive from Mr. Perryman in order to reach an accord 19 with him relative to an offer in compromise of his 20 21 22 23 24 25 tax liabilities. We would hope that the request of information from Mr. Perryman be such that he is given ample time to organize the required information necessary. Given these circumstances, we would hope 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company that the matter can be resolved upon the remand to the settlement office of the Internal Revenue Service and we so order a remand. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of 7 Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) , (cid:16)042 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