TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James Coppedge
Docket Number: 18727-11L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/27/2012
Pages: 7

UNITED SsTATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D . C. . JAMES COPPEDGE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Re spondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 18727-11 L O R D E R 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 transcript of Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 14, 2012, containing his oral rendered at the conclusion of trial. the above case before Special the trial of the pages of the findings of fact and opinion In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 27, 2012 $$VED MAR 2 8 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 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo Coppedge v. Commissioner Docket No. 18727-11L 3 March 14, 2012 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). Unless otherwise indicated, section references contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6330(d) proceeding has been assigned in accordance with section 7443A(b) (4) and Rule 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 relied upon as precedent. Kristina L. Rico appeared on behalf of respondent. Petitioner lived in Delaware at the time the petition was filed. He is self-represented in this case and did not appear at trial. On June 9, 2010, respondent received from petitioner a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, that purports·to be petitioner's 2008 Federal 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 income tax return (return). On the return petitioner (1) reports $315,649.88 as his "taxable income", (2) reports no 2008 Federal income tax liability, and (3) claims a refund for the amount shown as his taxable income. In the middle of the first page of the return are the words "Accepted for Value Returned for Value Settlement and Discharged", twice appear by stamp. Under one of the stamped versions of this language, petitioner's signature appears as "authorized representative". The return is signed by petitioner in the designated area on page two. In the area designated "Your Occupation" petitioner entered "Authorized representative of James Coppedge". The return obviously "contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect". Section 6702(a) (1) (A). Furthermore, the stamps shown on the first page of the return, and petitioner's attempt to have the amount shown as taxable income refunded to him reflect petitioner's "desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws". Section 6702(a) (2) (B). Consequently, and in due course, the submission of the returns resulted in the assessment of a $5,000 section 6702(a) penalty (underlying liability) against petitioner for 2008. 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 In a letter dated February 7, 2011, petitioner was advised that respondent intended to levy (proposed collection action) in order to collect the underlying liability. That letter also advised petitioner of his right to request an administrative hearing in order to challenge the proposed collection action, which he did. Petitioner did not suggest a collection alternative to the proposed collection action during the administrative hearing. Instead he challenged the existence of the underlying liability claiming that the liability had been satisfied. His claim in that regard, stated in convoluted if not nonsensical terms, has no merit as it is clear that the underlying liability has never been paid. See section 6311; section 301.6311-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. In a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated July 20, 2011 (notice), respondent determined that the proposed collection action is appropriate. The language appearing in the petition filed in response to the notice is so syntactically obscure that but for the fact that the language is contained in a document submitted to the Court by an individual who apparently believes himself not subject to Federal 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 tax laws, the Court would have serious reservations about petitioner's competency to proceed as a self-represented litigant in this proceeding. Be that as it may, a fair reading of the petition, to the extent that we can make any sense from its contents, shows that petitioner challenges the determination made in the notice only because he is challenging the existence of the underlying liability, once again claiming that the liability has been. satisfied. Our jurisdiction in this matter is established in section 6330(d). The issue before the Court is whether petitioner is liable for the underlying liability, and we consider, de novo, the extent to which he is. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001); Callahan v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 44, 49 (2008); Blaga v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-170. As previously noted, petitioner did not propose a collection alternative to the collection action at the administrative hearing, and he does not do so here. Actually, because petitioner did not request a collection alternative at the administrative hearing, he is not entitled to do so here. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 113 (2007). All things considered, there is little for 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 7 us to do in this matter. Petitioner does not suggest that the underlying liability was improperly assessed, or that the return is not a frivolous return within the meaning of section 6702(a); instead, he claims the. liability has been satisfied for reasons only meaningful to him. To the extent that respondent's burden of proof is not considered moot when weighed against petitioner's apparent concession of the point, we find that respondent's burden with respect to the imposition of the section 6702(a) penalty here in dispute has been satisfied. See section 6703(a). Furthermore, petitioner does not, and is not entitled to claim entitlement to a collection alternative in this proceeding, and nothing submitted by petitioner disputes respondent's evidence showing that respondent has otherwise satisfied the obligations imposed upon him by section 6330. On the basis of the evidence introduced by respondent, we find that the return is a frivolous return within the meaning of section 6702(a) and that petitioner is liable for the section 6702(a) penalty here in dispute. We further find that the underlying liability has not been satisfied, and that respondent may proceed with collection as determined in the notice. 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 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was¯ concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // /./ // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888