TAX COURT OPINION

Case: David E. Landess
Docket Number: 20586-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/06/2009
Pages: 13

5 64 q UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 DAVID E LANDESS, Petitioner, v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R ,' w_. Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Albuquerque, New Mexico on February 9, 2009, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the hearing on respondent's motion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . March 6, 2009 SERVED Mar 09 2009 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa 2 Docket Number 20586-07 L February 9, 200 9 3 David E . Landess v . Commissioner 4 The Court has decided to render ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and th e 6 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . These oral findings of fact and opinion 8 shall not be relied upon as precedent in any othe r 9 case . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 11 authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 12 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 13 Code, as amended and in effect for 2000 through and 14 including 2003, the years at issue, and all rul e 15 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 16 Procedure . 17 This is a collection review case involving 18 the filing of a notice of federal tax lien, as well as 19 a proposed levy to collect Petitioner's unpai d 20 liabilities for each of the years at issue . This 21 collection review matter is before the Court o n 22 Respondent's motion for partial summary judgment filed 23 on December 11, 2008, as supplemented on December 31, 24 2008 . 25 There was no appearance by or on behalf of Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 Petitioner . Douglas Polsky appeared on behalf o f 2 Respondent . 3 FINDINGS OF FACT 4 The record establishes, or the parties d o 5 not dispute, the following : Petitioner resided in New 6 Mexico at the time he filed the collection review 7 petition in this case . Petitioner failed to file . a 8 return for any of the four years at issue . Respondent 9 prepared a substitute for return based upon 10 information from third-party payors . Respondent also 11 issued a statutory notice of deficiency to Petitioner 12 for the years at issue, but Petitioner failed to file 13 a petition timely . Respondent thereafter assessed the 14 tax liabilities for the years at issue along with the 15 additions to tax and interest . 16 Respondent issued to Petitioner a letter 17 entitled "Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and 18 Notice of Your Right to a Hearing" dated January 29, 19 2007 for the outstanding tax liabilities for each of 20 the years at issue, including the civil penalty for 21 filing a false withholdings certificate for 2004 , 22 which notice shall be referred to as the levy notice . 23 Respondent also mailed a letter t o 24 Petitioner entitled "Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing 25 and Your Rights to a Hearing" dated February 8, 2007, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 for the outstanding liabilities, referred to as the 2 lien notice . 3 Petitioner requested a hearing in response 4 to the lien notice and the levy notice . Petitioner 5 sought to contest the underlying tax liabilities at 6 issue, including the civil penalty assessed agains t 7 Petitioner for filing a false withholding certificate 8 for 2004 . 9 In his hearing request, Petitioner raised no 10 relevant issue, but merely parroted the language o f 11 Section 6330 . Specifically, he stated that, "I am 12 requesting a face to face collection due proces s 13 hearing in an appeals office closest to my place o f 14 residence, which I will be audio recording . There are 15 a few issues I wish to address ' t the hearing tha t 16 include, but are not limited to, a dispute over the 17 underlying tax liability, a challenge to th e 18 appropriateness of the levy action, and inquiry into 19 whether the IRS met the requirements of any applicable 20 laws and administrative procedures, and an offer o f 21 valid collection alternatives .'" 22 The settlement officer assigned t o 23 Petitioner's hearing informed Petitioner that he would 24 be allowed a face to face conference on any non- 25 frivolous issue . Petitioner was told that he must Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 provide the non-frivolous issue in writing, or by 2 calling the settlement officer within a date certain . 3 Petitioner never responded, nor di d 4 Petitioner complete a Form 433-A entitled "Collection 5 Information Statement" so that they could conside r 6 collection alternatives . The settlement officer also 7 explained that Petitioner needed to file delinquen t 8 tax returns for 2004, 2005 and 2006, and that he 9 needed to be current with estimated tax payments . 10 The letter also informed Petitioner that if 11 he failed to provide the necessary information, the 12 settlement officer would be unable to consider an y 13 collection alternatives, and would issue a 14 determination notice based on the information in 15 Respondent's administrative file . 16 Without any additional information fro m 17 Petitioner, the settlement officer sustained the lien 18 action and the proposed collection action by levy in a 19 notice of determination concerning collection actions 20 under Section 6320 and/or 6330 dated August 9, 2007 . 21 As previously stated, Respondent filed a 22 motion for partial summary judgment, as supplemented . 23 Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing o n 24 Respondent's motion, asserting instead that no trial 25 should be held as the Court's review should be limited Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 to the administrative record, relying on Robinette v . 2 Commissioner , 439 F .3d 455 (8th Circuit 2006 ) 3 reversing 123 T .C . 85 (2004) . 4 The Court finds Petitioner's reliance on 5 Robinette misplaced . The Court filed Petitioner's 6 objection to Respondent's motion, and also file d 7 another document entitled "Petitioner's Statement" as 8 a status report . Nothing in the objection or status 9 report is relevant to the issue whether Responden t 10 abused his discretion in sustaining the collection 11 action regarding the outstanding liabilities . 12 OPINION 13 We are asked to decide whether to gran t 14 partial or full summary judgment . Summary judgment is 15 intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary 16 and expensive trials . See, e .g ., FPL Group, Inc . v . 17 Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 74 (2001) . 18 A motion for summary judgment will b e 19 granted if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, 20 depositions, admissions, and other acceptabl e 21 materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show 22 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 23 and that a decision may be rendered as a matter o f 24 law . See Rule 121(b) ; Electric Arts, Inc . v . 25 Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 (2002) . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 The moving party has the burden of proving 2 that no genuine issue of material fact exists, an d 3 that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . 4 See, e .g ., Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 5 162 (2002) . 6 The party opposing summary judgment must set 7 forth specific facts that show that a genuine issue of 8 material fact exists and may not rely merely on , 9 allegations or denials in the pleadings . Grant Creek 10 Water Works, Ltd . v . Commissioner , 91 T .C . 322, 32 5 11 (1988) ; Casanova Co . v . Commissioner , 87 T .C . 214, 217 12 (1986) . 13 Standard of review . We begin with the 14 standard of review . Where the validity of th e 15 underlying tax liability is properly at issue, th e 16 Court will review the matter on a de novo basis . Sego 17 v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) . Where, as 18 in is the case here , the validity of the underlying 19 tax liability is not properly placed at issue, th e 20 Court will review Respondent's determination for abus e 21 of discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , su ra ; Goza v . 22 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 (2000) . 23 We must decide whether Respondent exercised 24 his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without 25 sound basis in fact or law . See Woodral v . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 2 Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) ; Fargo v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-13 . 3 Based upon our examination of the entire 4 record before us, we find that Respondent did not 5 abuse his discretion in determining that the 6 collection action should proceed with respect t o 7 Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for each of the years 8 at issue, as well as the civil penalty for filing a 9 false withholding certificate for 2004 . 10 Overview of Collection Proceedings . If any 11 person liable for federal tax liability neglects o r 1 2 1 3 14 15 refuses to make payment within 10 days of notice and demand, the Commissioner is authorized to collect the tax by levy on that person's property . See Sec . 6331(a) . 16 At least 30 days before enforcing collection 17 by levy on the person's property, the Secretary i s 18 obliged to provide the person with a final notice of 19 intent to levy, including notice of the administrative 20 appeals available to the person . See Sec . 6331(d) . 21 The person is entitled, upon request, to an 22 administrative review hearing before Appeals . Sec . 23 6330(b)(1) . 24 If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or 25 she may raise at the hearing any relevant issues Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 10 1 relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy . Sec . 2 6331(c)(2) . Relevant issues include any appropriat e 3 spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of 4 collection, and possible alternative means o f 5 collections, such as an installment agreement or an 6 offer in compromise . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(A) . 7 After the hearing, the appeals officer i s 8 required to make a determination that addresses issues 9 the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of 10 applicable law and administrative procedures have been 11 met, and balances the need for the efficien t 12 collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the 13 person that any collection action be no more intrusive 14 than necessary . Sec . 6330(c) (3) (C) . 15 The record reflects that the settlement 16 officer properly verified that all the legal and 17 procedural requirements have been met . The settlement 18 officer confirmed, using a transcript of Petitioner's 19 accounts, that assessments were properly made for . each 20 of the years at issue, that appropriate and timel y 21 notices were sent regarding the assessments, and that 22 Petitioner was properly informed of his rights with 23 respect to the combined lien action and proposed levy 24 action . 25 The record also reflects the Petitioner did Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 not raise any relevant issue, nor provide an y 2 financial information, or become compliant with his 3 delinquent filing and payment obligations . We hav e 4 frequently and consistently held that an officer does 5 not abuse any discretion if the taxpayer fails t o 6 submit the required and requested financia l 7 information . Sapp v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2006- 8 104 ; Newstat v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-208 . 9 Finally, the record reflects that the 10 settlement officer properly balanced the need for 11 efficiency collection of taxes with Petitioner's 12 legitimate concern that any collection be no more 13 intrusive than necessary . 14 In this proceeding now before the Court, 15 Petitioner asserts nothing but frivolous an d 16 groundless arguments . It is apparent from the entire 17 record that Petitioner instituted or maintained this 18 proceeding primarily, if not exclusively, as a protest 19 against the federal income tax system, and hi s 20 proceeding in this Court is merely a continuation of 21 Petitioner's refusal to acknowledge and satisfy hi s 22 tax obligations . 23 We are convinced that no purpose would be 24 served in repeating all that has been said about his 25 frivolous and misguided arguments . We take thi s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1. 1 12 1 opportunity to admonish Petitioner that the Court wil l 2 consider imposing a penalty against Petitioner under 3 Section 6673, if Petitioner returns to the Court and 4 advances similar arguments in the future . 5 Section 6673 authorizes the Tax Court to 6 require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a 7 penalty up to $25,000 whenever it appears tha t 8 proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the 9 taxpayer primarily for delay, or that the taxpayer's 10 position in such proceedings is frivolous o r 11 groundless . 12 Petitioner has not asserted any spousal 13 defenses, or otherwise offered any additiona l 14 collection alternatives . See Sec . 6330(c)(2) . 15 Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded . 16 Rule 331 (b) (4 ) 17 Petitioner has not presented any evidence or 18 persuasive arguments to convince us that Responden t 19 abused his discretion . We therefore conclude that the 20 settlement officer properly held Respondent's combined 21 lien and proposed levy action to collect Petitioner's 22 outstanding tax liabilities for each of the years at 23 issue, as well as the civil penalty for 2004 fo r 24 filing a false withholding certificate . 25 Thus, having reviewed the entire record, we Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 3 1 shall grant Respondent's motion for partial summary 2 judgment, as supplemented . Petitioner canno t 3 challenge either the existence or amount of th e 4 underlying tax liabilities for the tax years 200 0 5 through 2003, was well as the civil penalty for filing 6 a false withholding certificate for 2004 . 7 The Court, on its own motion, grants summary 8 judgment with respect to these issues, and sustain s 9 Respondent's determinations . Courts have the inherent 10 authority to issue orders as they deem necessary and 11 prudent to achieve the orderly and expeditiou s 12 disposition of their cases . See Roadway Express, Inc . 13 v . Piper , 447 U .S . 752, 764-765 (1980) ; Link v . Wabash 14 Railroad Co ., 370 U .S . 626, 269-632 (1962) ; Williams 15 v . Commissioner , 92 T .C . 920, 932-933 (1989) . We may 16 enter an order for summary judgment on our own motion . 17 See, e .g ., Wong v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . .2000-236 . 18 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 19 entered for Respondent, and an appropriate order will 20 be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in 21 the notice of determination concerning collectio n 22 actions under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated August 23 9, 2007, upon which this case is based regarding the 24 unpaid liabilities for the taxable years 2000 through 25 and including 2003, as well as the civil penalty for Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4, 14 1 2004 . The order will also grant Respondent's motion 2 for partial summary judgment, as supplemented, an d 3 will grant, on the Court's own . motion, summary 4 judgment in favor of Respondent for the taxable years 5 2000 through 2003, plus the civil penalty for 2004 . 6 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion in this case . 8 (Whereupon, at 3 :51 p .m ., the bench opinio n 9 was concluded .) 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888