TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Keith Ira Buduhn
Docket Number: 7300-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/16/2010
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 2021 7 KEITH IRA BUDUHN , Petitioner , V . Docket No . 7300-09 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Detroit, Michigan, on March 25, 2010, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion . In accordance with the-oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judg e Date : Washington, .'D .C . April 16, 2010 SERVED APR 19 2010 1 2 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroup a March 25, 201 0 Keith Ira'Buduhn Docket No . 7300-09 L 2 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 . 8 These oral findings of Fact and opinion shall not be 9 relied upon as precedent in any other case . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 11 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . All 12 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as 13 amended and in effect for 2005, the year at issue, and 14 all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules o f 15 Practice and Procedure . 16 This is a collection review case involving the 17 filing of a notice of Federal tax .lien and a proposed 18 levy action to collect petitioner's unpaid liabilities 19 for 2005 . This collection review matter is before the 20 Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment that 21 was scheduled for a hearing on March 22, 2010, i n 22 Detroit, Michigan . Petitioner failed to file a response 23 or objection and failed to file a Rule 50(c) statement in 24 lieu of attending the hearing . Mindy Chou appeared o n 25 behalf of respondent at the hearing . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 FINDINGS OF FAC T 2 The record establishes or the parties do no t 3 dispute the following : 4 5 7 Petitioner resided in Wyoming, Michigan at the time he filed the collection review petition in this case . Petitioner late filed a return for 2005 on Augus t 8 15, 2007, showing a tax due of $10,921 after applying a 9 nominal amount withheld . Respondent assessed the tax due 10 and the additions to tax . Petitioner failed to pay the 11 amounts assessed so respondent thereafter issued t o 12 petitioner a letter dated October 6, 2008, entitled 13 'Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of 14 Your Right to a Hearing,' for the outstanding ta x 15 liability at issue . (This notice shall be referred to as 16 the 'Levy Notice' . ) 17 Petitioner timely requested a hearing in response 18 to the Levy Notice . In his hearing request, petitioner 19 did not contest the liability for the unpaid taxes an d 20 additions for 2005 . Instead, he requested an installment 21 agreement or an offer in compromise to pay th e 22 outstanding amount . 23 Letters from respondent informed petitioner of 24 the fees and the completed forms petitioner needed to 25 submit to consider any collection alternatives . The Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 telephone hearing occurred as scheduled . Petitioner 2 explained .to the Settlement Officer that he had th e 3 necessary documents and would send them by facsimile to 4 the Settlement Officer . Petitioner sent an incomplete 5 unsigned copy of Form 433-A, Collection Informatio n 6 Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, 7 a copy of one earnings statement representing a week of 8 wages, and one page from petitioner's retirement account . 9 There is an-undated letter from petitioner askin g 10 respondent to reconsider his claimed monthly income and 11 expenses summarized on this 1-page letter . Petitioner 12 failed to provide any documentation to substantiate the 13 claimed payments for the home improvement loan, hi s 14 daughter's car payment, cottage payments, golf ca r 15 payments, child support, clothing for an alleged son nor 16 any court orders regarding petitioner's alleged custody 17 arrangement . 18 Despite requests from the Settlement Officer , 19 petitioner failed to provide the necessary documentation . 20 The Settlement Officer specifically asked that petitioner 21 provide proof of housing, vehicle payments, additiona l 22 pay stubs and the fourth page of 433-A . Petitioner faxed 23 eight pages regarding certain expenses that were already 24 incorporated in the national standards . The Settlement 25 Officer sent a letter to petitioner informing him that , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 if he failed to provide the necessary financia l 2 information and documentation, the Settlement Office r 3 would be unable to consider any collection alternatives, 4 including petitioner's proposed installment arrangement . 5 The Settlement Officer used the national standards for 6 Kent County, Michigan and determined that petitione r 7 could pay $445 .98 a month if an installment arrangement 8 were to be accepted . Petitioner did not agree to th e 9 installment arrangement . Without any documentation of 10 petitioner's expenses, the Settlement Officer sustained 11 the proposed collection action in a Notice o f 12 Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under 13 Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 19, 2009 , 14 regarding petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for 2005 . 15 Petitioner timely filed a petition to contest the 16 collection action to collect petitioner's unpaid ta x 17 liabilities for the year at issue and asserts that the 18 Settlement officer abused her discretion in using the 19 national standard expense amounts rather than 20 petitioner's actual amounts summarized on the 1-page 21 letter that petitioner was unable to document . 22 As stated previously, respondent filed a motion 23 for summary judgment and petitioner failed to file a n 24 objection or a Rule 50(c) statement in lieu of attending 25 the hearing . The Court explained to petitioner several Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 times on the telephone weeks before the hearing that h e 2 could file a Rule 50 ( c) statement instead of missing work 3 to attend the hearing . Petitioner failed to submit a 4 Rule 50 ( c) statement . Petitioner relies upon the undated 5 letter where he summarizes his income and expenses bu t 6 has failed to provide the necessary documentation to 7 substantiate the amounts on the 1-page letter . 8 OPINION 9 We are asked to decide whether to grant summary 10 judgment . Summary judgment is intended to expedit e 11 litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials . 12 See, e .g ., FPL Group , Inc . v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 13 74 ( 2001 ) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted 14 if the pleadings , answers to interrogatories , 15 depositions , admissions , and other acceptable materials, 16 together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is 17 no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a 18 decision may be rendered as a matter of law . See Rule 19 121 ( b) ; Elect . Arts , Inc . v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 20 238 ( 2002 ) . The moving party has the burden of proving 21 that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it 22 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . See, e .g ., 23 Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157 , 162 (2002) . 24 The party opposing summary judgment must set forth 25 specific facts that show that a genuine question of Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 material fact exists and may not rely merely o n 2 allegations or denials in the pleadings . Grant Creek 3 Water Works, Ltd . v .. Commissioner , 91 T .C . 322, 32 5 4 (1988) . 5 We begin with the standard of review . Where the 6 validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at 7 issue, the Court will review the matter on a de nov o 8 basis . Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) . 9 Where, as is the case here, the validity of th e 10 underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, 11 the Court will review respondent's determination fo r 12 abuse of discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , supra ; Goza 13 v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 (2000) . We must 14 decide whether respondent exercised his discretio n 15 arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact 16 or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 2 3 17 (1999) ; Fargo v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-13 . Based 18 upon our examination of the entire record before us, we 19 find that respondent did not abuse his discretion i n 20 determining that the collection action should procee d 21 with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 2005 . 22 The record reflects that the Settlement Officer 23 properly verified that all the legal and procedura l 24 requirements had been met . She confirmed, using a 25 transcript of petitioner's accounts, that assessments Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 were properly made for 2005, that appropriate and timely 2 notices were sent regarding the assessments, and tha t 3 petitioner was properly informed of his rights with 4 respect to the levy action . 5 The record also reflects that petitioner did not 6 present sufficient' financial documentation for respondent 7 to fully evaluate taxpayer's actual expenses . Petitioner 8 providedEan incomplete Form 433 and failed to provid e 9 proof of his claimed living expenses . Even now , 10 petitioner fails to':provide the necessary documentatio n 11 as to petitioner's actual expenses . We have frequently 12 and consistently held that an officer does not abuse any 13 discretion if the taxpayer fails to submit the required 14 and requested financial information . Sapp v . 15 16 Commissioner, T .C . Memo . 2006-104 ; Newstat v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-208 . Accordingly, the 17 Settlement Officer was justified in using the nationa l 18 standards rather than petitioner's undocumented expenses 19 and amounts . 20 The Settlement Officer also addressed the sole 21 issue petitioner raised in his hearing request, which wa s 22 to pay the outstanding liabilities through an installment 23 arrangement . The Settlement Officer informed petitioner 24 that she determined that he could pay $445 .98 a month if 25 an installment arrangement were to be accepted . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 Petitioner was told that he needed to provide a complete d 2 Form 433 and to provide the necessary financia l 3 documentation to respondent in at least three separat e 4 letters or telephone calls . Finally, the record reflects 5 that the Settlement Officer properly balanced the nee d 6 for efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's 7 legitimate concern that any collection be no mor e 8 intrusive than necessary . 9 Petitioner has not contested the underlyin g 10 liabilities, raised any spousal defenses, or otherwise 11 offered any acceptable collection alternatives . See sec . 12 6330(c)(2) . Accordingly, these issues are now deeme d 13 conceded . Rule 331(b)(4) . 14 Petitioner has not presented any evidence or 15 persuasive arguments to convince us that respondent 16 abused his discretion . We therefore conclude that 17 respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholdin g 18 respondent's proposed action to collect from petitioner 19 outstanding tax liabilities for the year at issue . 20 To reflect the foregoing, decision will b e 21 entered for respondent and an appropriate order will be 22 issued sustaining the determinations set forth in the 23 Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) 24 Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 19, 2009, 25 upon which this case is based, regarding the unpai d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 22 2 3 24 25 { 10 liabilities for the taxable year 2005 . The order wil l also grant respondent's motion for summary judgment . This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fac t and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 10 :26 a .m ., the bench opinion i n the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888