TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Laura Denise Seidel
Docket Number: 24661-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/25/2011
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ANTHONY WIEST, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 30145-09L. Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk ož the Court shall transmit herewith to Petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at San Francisco, California,; on March 8, 2011, containing his oral findings of the hearing. fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of In accordance with the 'oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 25, 2011 SERVED MAR 3 1 2011 Bench Opinion by. Judge Joseph Robert Goeke March 8, 2011 Anthony Wiest. v. Commis'sioner. Docket No. 30145-09L 3 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. a This opinion is rendered pursuant to the authority granted in Internal Revenue Code section 7459(b). Hereinafter. references to sections are to the Internal Revenue Code. The Court also provides authority for bench opinions in Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure. .Hereinafter,' references to rules are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure. The Court has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to section 6330(d)-and the case is presented to the Court pursuant to Respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed under -Rule 121. . - This is a case involving Respondent's attempt to collect an income tax liability which arises after the Petitioner failed to file federal income tax returns. Respondent proposes a levy to collect tax liabilities arising in the year 2005. 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 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 4 Petitioner's arguments in response to Respondent's motion for summary judgment are that he did not receive the notice of deficiency issued by the Respondent for the year 2005 and is therefore entitled to challenge the underlying tax liability for that year, pursuant to section 6330(c) (2) (]B). Respondent demonstrates in the attachments to the motion for summary judgment and in a declaration of Maureen Green which was submitted at the hearing on Respondent's motion that Petitioner was mailed a notice of deficiency for 2005, and that the address on the mailing was the same address that Petitioner has lived at through t 20 5 all the way to the present. Petitioner does not contest the facts asserted by Respondent but merely boldly asserts that he did not receive the notice of deficiency. So the first issue presented by Respondent's motion is whether Petitioner's assertion that he did not receive the notice of deficiency is sufficient to rebut the facts presented by Respondent, which are uncontested, that the notice was mailed to Petitioner's address. In collection cases such as the present where the issuance of a notice of deficiency and receipt by the taxpayer is important in determining the scope of the review which is permissible under section 6330, Respondent is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 5 entitled to rely upon a presumption of official regularity, and that when Respondent demonstrates that a notice of deficiency has been mailed to the taxpayer's address, the taxpayer then must show extraordinary circumstances why he or she may not have received the notice of deficiency. See Seqo v. Commissioner, 114 TC 604, 610 (2000); and Bailey v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005-241. Petitioner did not attend the hearing on his motion, despite being aware that the motion was scheduled for hearing pursuant to orders issued by the Court. In his response to Respondent's motion for summary judgment, he boldly asserts that he did not receive the notice of deficiency for 2005 but offers no other explanation. He does not in any way refute Respondent's assertions and information submitted in conjunction with Respondent's motion that the notice of deficiency was mailed to his address. Given these circumstances, we find that Petitioner) recluded from raising the underlying liability in this case, and that to that extent Respondent's motion for summary judgment is correct. Petitioner also argues that he is entitled to a face-to-face hearing. His argument regarding the face-to- face hearing also fails because apart from his arguments challenging the underlying tax liability because of his Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 6 assertion that he did not receive the notice of deficiency, he did not offer any legitimate basis on which a hearing could be conducted. He failed to submit information which would allow the settlement officer to consider collection alternatives, despite the fact that the collection officer had requested this information before scheduling a telephone interview with the Petitioner. Petitioner's arguments regarding the necessity for a face-to-face hearing relate to his assertion that he's entitled to challenge the underlying liability, which, for the reasons we previously explained, he is not. Given our determinations, and Petitioner's failure to offer any factual evidence to contest Respondent's motion, we find that Rule 121 and the standard for review of a summary judgment motion is met here, because there is no legitimate dispute as to the underlying facts, and Respondent has born the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, given the fact that Petitioner has offered no specific facts to show that there is a question challenging Respondent's information which supports the mailing of the notice of deficiency to Petitioner's address. Grant Creek Waterworks, Limited v. Commissioner, 91 TC 322, 325 (1988). Based upon this analysis, it follows that Respondent's motion for summary judgment should be granted, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 and that a decision in this case upholding Respondent's collection action via levy should be entered. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion in this case. THE CLERK: All rise. (Whereupon, at 1:41 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888