TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Joel R. Veatch
Docket Number: 16584-10L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/06/2011
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 JOEL R. VEATCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF NTERNAL REVENUE, R spondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 16584 -10L Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it..is O R D E R ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of .the pages of transcript of Diane L. Kroupa at Seattle, Washi igton, on September 15, 2011, containing her o al findings of f ct and opinion. the proceedings of he above case before Judge In accordan e with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respÄndent. . (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, D.C. October 6., 2011 SERVED OCT 2 201i 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 3 Bench Opinion by Judge iane L. Kroupa September 15, 2011 Veatch v. Commissioner Docket No. 16584-10L 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 an 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 in .§ 7 59(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal,Revenue Code as amended and in effect for 2009, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court's Rules of Practice and "Proc edure . This is a collection review case involving a proposed levy to collect Petitioner's § 6672 trust fund liabilities regarding Flying Spot for the tax periods.ending December 31, 2005, March 31, 2006, September 30, 2006, December 31, 2006, and June 30, 2007 (ta>c periods at iss e) . This collection review matter is before the Court on Respondent's motion for summary judgment filed August 2, 2011. Petitioner fail d to file a response to Respondent's motion as ordered.and failed to appear at 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 the hearing scheduled in Seattle, Washington, on Septem er 12, 2011. Robert Boeshaar appeared on behalf of Respondent . Findings of Fact . The record establishes or the parbies do not dispute the fdllowing facts. Petitioher resided in V shon, Washington, at the time he filed the collection rev1.ew petition. Petitioner was a partner, shareholder and respons ble party in Flying Spot when the civil penalti s were assessed for the tax periods at issue. Flying Spot representati es filed amended 941 forms so the bal nce due would be reduced from $411,220 by $150, 000 . They had negotiated an installment agreemer t a year earlier, but missed a payment, so the installment agreement under that employer identification number had defaulted. The revenue officer they had been working with had been reassig ed. Petitioner failed to pay the tax assessments from Flying Spot, so Respondent sent Petitioner on November 18, 2009, a Fin 1 Notice - Notice of Intent to Levy nd Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. (cid:16)042 The not1ce a vised Petitione that Respondent intended to levy to collect the unpa' taxes for the tax periods at issue and informed Petitioner that he could receive Heritage Repo ting Corporation (202) 628-4.888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a heari g. Petitioner tirnely filed a request fór a hear1ng with Appeals by submitting Form 12'153, Request for a Cbllection Due Pr cess Hearing. The hearing request covered each of the tax periods at issue. Petitio er disagreed with the levy and wanted either an insthllment agreement or an offer in compromise. In 2009, Petitioner received $150,000 in wages f om Touch Worldwide, LLÖ and also failed to file a eturn for 2008. Petitioner submitted the request d financial info mation. Respondent determi ed that Petition r had the ability to pay over $3, 000 month to Respon ent on the unpaid tax amounts . Respondent iss ed a determination notice on June 21, 2010, upholding the levy action to collect the unp id mounts at is ue. As mentioned p eviously, Respondent filed a summary judgment motion. The Court scheduled the motion r a hearing in Seattle, Washington, on Septemb 12, 2011. Pet tioner failed to attend or f ile an bject ion . Opinion. We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment . Summary judgment is intended to exped te litigation a d avoici unnecessary and expensiv trials . See, e . g. FPL Group, Inc v. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Comm1ss oner, 116 T.C. 3, 4 (2001) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other a ceptable2materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue a 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 liab lity is not properly placed at issue t e Court will re iew Respondent's determination for abu e of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 60 , 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000) . We must decide whether Respond nt exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woo ral v. Commissio er, 112 T. C. 19, 23 (1999) . Based upon our examination of the entire record efore us, we find that Respondent did not abuse h s discretion in etermining that the collect on should procee with respect QCY1i:t1 to Petitioner's a unpaid liabilities for the tax periods at issue. Responde t is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his f vor. We briefly explain collection procedures If any p rson liable for federal tax liability neglects or refuses to make payment within 10 days of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 notice nd demand, the Commissioner is authorized to collec the tax by levy on that person' s property. See § (a) . At leas 30 days before enforcing 7 collect 'on by levy on the person' s property, the Secreta y is obliged to provide the person with a final n tice of intent to levy, including notice of the adm nistrative appeals available to .the person. (o33l See § ·(d) . The person is entitled, upon request, to an admïnist rative review hearing before Appeals. Sec. 6+34(b) 1) . If the taxp yer requests a hearing, he or she may raise at that he ring any releyant issues relatin to the unpaid t x or the proposed levy. Sec. c) 2) . Relevant is ues include any appropriate spousal defenses, challe ges to the appropriateness of collect on and possible lternative means of collect on such as an installment agreement or an of fer i compromise . Sec . 6fr&O (c) (2) (A) . After the hearing, the appeals officer is require to make a determination that addresses issues the taxp yer raised, verifies that all requirements of applicab e law and admin strative procedures have been met and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than Heritage Repo ting Corporation (202) 628-4888 . 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 necessary. Sec. 6330 (c) (3) (C) . The record reflects that the settlement officer properly verified that all the legal and procedural= requirements have been met. The settlement officer confirmed, using a transcript of Petitioner's accounts, that assessments were properly made for each tax period at issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sent regarding the assessments and that . Petitioner was properly informed of his rights with respect to the proposed levy action. The record also reflects that the settlement officer properly balance the need. for efficient collection of taxes with Petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary.. Petit ioner has not raised any challenges to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousal defenses or therwise offer any collection alternatives . See § (c ) (2) . Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. , Rule 331(b) (4) . . Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasr/e arguments tb convince us that Respondent abused his discretion. e therefore conclude that Respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding Respondent' s proposed levy action. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) T 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 9 entered for Respondent nd an appropriate order will be issu d sustaining th determinations set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action ( Under .§ 6320 nd/or 6330 dated June 21, 2010, upon which this case is based regarding the unpaid liabilities for e ch of the taxable periods at issue. The order will a so grant Respondent's motion f or sum ary judgment . This concludes the Court's oral .findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled ma ter was concluded.) // // // // // // Heritage Repo ting Corporation (202) 628-4888