TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Bradley Warren Pugh
Docket Number: 1126-12L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/28/2012
Pages: 6

SEC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 BRADLEY WARREN PUGH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 1126-12L ) ) ) ) ORD E R Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on November 7, 2012, 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 Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Los Angeles, California, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order and Decision will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 28, 2012 SERVED Nov 30 2012 Capital Reporting Company Pugh Bench Opinion 11-7-2012 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo November 7, 2012 Bradley Warren Pugh v. Commissioner Docket No.: 1126-12L 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 periods. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This Section 6330 (d) proceeding has been assigned pursuant to Section 7443A(b) (4) and Rules 180 through 182. 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 precedent. This case is before the Court on respondent ' s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to Impose a Penalty under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed August 3, 2012. Petitioner's responses to respondent's Motion have been filed on various dates. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 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 Capital Reporting Company Pugh Bench Opinion 11-7-2012 None of his responses suggest that any material fact is in dispute in this case. A hearing was conducted on respondent's motion on November 6th, 2012, in Los Angeles, California. The parties appeared and were 4 heard. Giving due regard to the representations made in respondent's motion, petitioner's responses to respondent's motion, and the arguments presented by the parties at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts in this case, and for the following reasons, that respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law. Consequently, disposition of the case upon respondent's motion is appropriate. Rule 121(b); Sunstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992) affd. 17 F.3rd 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The undisputed facts relevant to the disposition of respondent's motion are summarized as follows. In a Notice of Determination Concerning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Collection Action(s), under Section 6320 and/or 6330, 21 22 23 24 25 dated December 9, 2011 (notice), respondent determined that a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) is an appropriate collection action with respect to petitioner's (1) outstanding 2008 Federal income tax liability and (2) outstanding liability for Sections (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Pugh Bench Opinion 11-7-2012 6702 penalties assessed for 2006. Respondent now concedes that so much of the notice that includes a determination with respect to 2008 should not be sustained. Our focus then is directed exclusively to 5 so much of the notice as relates to 2006. Petitioner is not seeking a collection alternative to the NFTL in this matter and he does not challenge the assessment of the section 6702 penalties for 2006 (the underlying liabilities). Instead, he claims that the underlying liabilities have been paid. In proceedings such as this one, we consider a taxpayer's claim that the relevant tax has been paid to be a challenge to the existence or the amount of the underlying liability and we review de novo, respondent's determination to collect that liability. See sec. 6330 (c) (2) (B); Boyd v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 127, 131 (2001). The resolution of what remains to be decided in this case depends upon whether petitioner has paid the underlying liabilities. According·to petitioner, he has; according to respondent, the underlying liabilities have not been paid. The disagreement between the parties on the point seemingly gives rise to a factual dispute, however, considering the manner in which petitioner claims to 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) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Pugh Bench Opinion 11-7-2012 have paid the underlying liabilities demonstrates 6 otherwise. According to petitioner the underlying liabilities were paid upon his submission to respondent a multi-page document entitled "Actual/Constructive Notice" dated February 15, 2011, copies of which are included in the submissions of the parties. The document clearly does not fit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 within any of the methods of payment contemplated by 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 6311(a) and its corresponding regulation. Respondent's records show that the underlying liabilities have not been paid. Petitioner's claim that the underlying liabilities have been paid by the submission of the above- referenced document is rejected as a matter of law. Respondent's motion further demonstrates that in all other respects the requirements imposed upon him by sections 6320 and/or 6330 have been satisfied and Petitioner does not suggest otherwise. It follows that so much of the determination made in the notice should be sustained as relates to 2006, and pursuant to respondent's concession, rejected as relates to 2008. Respondent's motion also requests the imposition of a Section 6673(a) penalty. That (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Pugh Bench Opinion 11-7-2012 section provides ·for a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if it appears to the Court that the proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay, or that the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless, or that the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies. The manner in which petitioner has proceeded in this case would support the imposition of a Section 6673 penalty for at least one, if not all, of the above reasons. Nevertheless, respondent's concession of so much of the case as relates to 2008 constrains us to reject respondent's request for the imposition of a Section 6673 penalty. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate Order and Decision will be entered. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:58 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 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