TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Anthony Albert & Dana Nancy Ferrigno
Docket Number: 20033-12L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/14/2013
Pages: 8

SEC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 Petitioners, v. Docket No. 20033-12L ANTHONY ALBERT & DANA NANCY FERRIGNO, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMISSIONER.OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules'of Practice and.Procedure, it is ORD E R ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in San Francisco, California on October 23, 2013, containing her 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 will be issued granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC November 14, 2013 SERVED Nov 18 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa 2 October 23, 2013 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Anthony Albert & Dana Nancy Ferrign.o v. Commissioner Docket No. 20033-12L 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. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Code in effect for 2007, 2008 and 2009, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case invo.lving a proposed levy to collect from petitioners their unpaid tax liability for 2007, 2008 and 2009. hèbilïhis This collection review matter is before the Court on re spondent ' s Motion f or Summar y Judgment . The . Cour t ordered petitioners to file a response or an objection to respondent's motion, and scheduled respondent's motion for a hearing on the Court's 25 October 21, 2013 San Francisco, California trial 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 · session. : 2 3 4 Petitioners did not file a timely response or objection. They waited for the hearing to be held, at which time they filed their opm o¢itinn. ob whù 5 Petitioner husband appeared on behalf of petitioners . 6 7 .8 Timothy Froehle appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes the following facts. 9 Petitioners resided in Athens, Tennessee at the time 10 they filed the collection review petition. 11 Petitioners timely filed returns for 2007, 2008 and 12 2009, but failed to pay the self-assessed amounts. 13 Petitioner husband is a personal injury attorney, and 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21- 22 23 24 25 it oftentimes takes years before he receives any payout. When petitioners failed to pay the assessed amounts, respondent issued a balance due notice of approximately $400, 000 . Petitioners failed to pay the assessed amount, so respondent placed a lien on petitioners' property in Tennessee. Petitioners timely filed a petition contesting the collection action, and requesting respondent to release the lien so they could obtain a loan to pay the IRS and/or refinance the mortgage on the Tennessee property. Curiously, petitioners wrote 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 on the hearing request that they do not own the fee interest in the Tennessee property, so the lien is unlawful. . Petitioners also assert that they were not given sufficient time to provide the requested oc»R^ÅS -mf-ema+-i-on. Moreover, petitioners assert that they were not required to provide the requested financial information, because they were going to pay the outstanding amount in full. As mentioned previously, respondent filed a summary judgment motion and the Court scheduled a hearing on respondent's motion at the San Francisco, 13 California trial session beginning October 21, 2013. 14 Petitioners did not file a response or an objection 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to respondent's motion as the Court ordered. Petitioners did, however, appear at the hearing on respondent's motion. OPINION We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See e.g., FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable materials, together with the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b). Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). We therefore must decide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or 12 without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. 13 14 15 16 Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that the collection action should proceed 17 with respect to petitioners' unpaid liabilities for 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2007, 2008 and 2009. Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We briefly explain how we reached our decision. First, the record reflects that petitioners never presented any financial information for the settlement officer to evaluate any collection alternatives. We have frequently and consistently 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6, 7 8 held that an officer does not abuse any discretion by refusing to consider collection alternatives, if. the taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested financial information. Sapp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-104. In addition, a settlement officer is not obligated to negotiate indefinitely or wait any specific time before issuing a determination. See 9 Kreit Mech. Assocs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 10 11 12 13, 14 15 123, 134. (2011); Kuretski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-262:; Clawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004- 106. Moreover, it is ;w.ell-established that a settlement officer may refuse to consider any collective alternatives if the taxpayer has a history .16 of non-complïance and is not in compliance with 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 current tax obligations. 'Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T . C. 107, 111-112 (2007 ) ; Balsamo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-109. Petitioners make a nonsensical argument that they do not have an ownership interest in the Tennessee property, yet they want the lien withdrawn so they could ·obtain a loan.. We also must deny 24 , petit·ioners' request to withdraw the lien as it 25 affects their ability to obtain a loan. Our . 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 jurisdiction under section 6330 is generally limited to reviewing whether a proposed collection action is proper. Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C. ·Memo. 2004- 152. We generally have no authority to grant relief to a taxpayer's claim that filing a lien adversely affected that taxpayer's credit rating. Gerakios v. · Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-203. Petitioners have not raised anyhchallenges PLk to the to clöteness Á p opriate collection action, did not assert any spousal defenses, or otherwise offer any collection alternatives. See sec. 6330(c) (2). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. 13 14 15 16 17 Rule 331(b) (4). To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent, and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determination set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection 18· Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, upon which 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this case is based, regarding petitioners ' unpaid income tax liabilities for 2007, 2008 and 2009. The order will also grant respondent's motion for summary judgment. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., the above- 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 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 entitled matter was concluded.) 9 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com