TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Shelia R. Howard
Docket Number: 18097-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/11/2008
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D .C . 2021 7 SHEILA R . HOWARD, Petitioner, v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 18097-07S 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 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 Memphis, Tennessee on June 10, 2008, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . July 11, 2008 SERVED JUL 1 1 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa June 10, 200 8 2 Howard v . Commissioner Docket No . 18097-07 S 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 4 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 5 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 6 fact and opinion . These oral findings of fact an d 7 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 8 other case . 9 This proceeding for was conducted as a Small 10 Tax Case pursuant to section 7463 and Rules 17 0 11 through 175 . This bench opinion is made pursuant to 12 the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenu e 14 Code as amended and in effect for 2004 and 2005, the 15 years at issue, and all rule references are to the Tax 16 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 17 This is a collection review case involving 18 the filing of a notice of Federal tax levy to collect 19 petitioner's unpaid liabilities for the taxable year 20 2004 and 2005 . This collection review matter i s 21 before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary 22 Judgment filed on April 1, 2008 . 23 Shelia Howard appeared on her own behalf . 24 Caroline R . Krivacka appeared on behalf of respondent . 25 FINDINGS OF FAC T Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 The record establishes or the parties do not 2 dispute the following : 3 Petitioner resided in Tennessee at the time 4 she filed the collection review petition in this case . 5 Petitioner filed a return for each of the years a t 6 issue claiming her daughter and her grandchildren as 7 dependents . Respondent examined petitioner's returns 8 for the years at issue and determined she was no t 9 entitled to claim her daughter and grandchildren as 10 dependents . Respondent issued a statutory notice of 11 deficiency for the years 2004 and 2005 on April 24, 12 2006, and petitioner failed to file a petition t o 13 contest the determinations . Respondent then assessed 14 the additional taxes for each of the years at issue, 15 which petitioner failed to pay . Respondent therefore 16 issued to petitioner a letter dated December 30, 2006, 17 entitled "Final Notice-Notice of Intent to Levy and 18 Notice of Your Right to a Hearing," for th e 19 outstanding tax liability for each of the years a t 20 issue . (This notice shall be referred to as the "Levy 21 Notice ." ) 22 In response to the Levy Notice, petitioner 23 timely requested a hearing . In her hearing request, 24 petitioner only sets forth arguments relating to the 25 underlying tax liability . For example, petitione r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 stated that her grandchild lived with her and her 2 daughter was not able to keep the lights on in her 3 daughter's house . 4 The settlement officer assigned t o 5 petitioner's hearing requested petitioner to provid e 6 the necessary documentation to claim the grandchildren 7 and daughter as dependents . Petitioner failed t o 8 provide the necessary information . No other issues 9 were raised, and no collection alternatives wer e 10 proposed . The settlement officer therefore sustained 11 the proposed collection action by levy in a Notice of 12 Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under 13 Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated July 13, 2007 . 14 Petitioner timely filed a petition to contest the 15 proposed levy action to collect petitioner's unpaid 16 tax liability for the years at issue . Petitioner 17 raised no new issues . 18 As stated previously, respondent filed a 19 summary judgment motion, and petitioner failed to file 20 a response or objection . 21 OPINION 22 We are asked to decide whether to grant 23 summary judgment . Summary judgment is intended to 24 expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary an d 25 expensive trials . See, e .g ., FPL Group, Inc . & Subs . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for 2 summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings , 3 answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, 4 and other acceptable materials, together with th e 5 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuin e 6 issue as to any material fact and that a decision may 7 be rendered as a matter of law . See Rule 121(b) ; 8 Elect . Arts, Inc . v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 9 (2002) . The moving party has the burden of proving 10 that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that 11 it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . See, 12 e .g ., Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 16 2 13 (2002) . The party opposing summary judgment must set 14 forth specific facts that show that a genuine question 15 of material fact exists and may not rely merely o n 16 allegations or denials in the pleadings . Grant Creek 17 Water Works, Ltd . v . Commissioner , 91 T .C . 322, 32 5 18 (1988) ; Casanova Co . v . Commissioner , 87 T .C . 214, 217 19 (1986) . 20 Standard of Review . We begin with the 21 standard of review . Where the validity of th e 22 underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the 23 Court will review the matter on a de novo basis . Sego 24 v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) . Where, as 25 is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court 2 will review respondent's determination for abuse of 3 discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , supra ; Goza v . 4 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 (2000) . We must 5 decide whether respondent exercised his discretio n 6 arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in 7 fact or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 8 19, 23 (1999) ; Fargo v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 9 2004-13 . Based upon our examination of the entire 10 record before us, we find that respondent did not 11 abuse his discretion in determining that th e 12 collection action should proceed with respect t o 13 petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005 . 14 We now discuss general collectio n 15 proceedings . If any person liable for Federal tax 16 liability neglects or refuses to make payment within 17 ten days of notice and demand, the Commissioner i s 18 authorized to collect the tax by levy on that person's 19 property . See sec . 6331(a) . At least 30 days before 20 enforcing collection by levy on the person's property, 21 the Secretary is obliged to provide the person with a 22 final notice of intent to levy, including notice o f 23 the administrative appeals available to the person . 24 See sec . 6331(d) . 25 The person is entitled, upon request, to an Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 administrative review hearing before Appeals . Sec . 2 6330(b)(1) . If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or 3 she may raise at that hearing any relevant issue s 4 relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy . Sec . 5 6330(c)(2) . Relevant issues include any appropriat e 6 spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of 7 collection, and possible alternative means o f 8 collection such as an installment agreement or an 9 offer-in-compromise . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(A) . After the 10 hearing, the Appeals officer is required to make a 11 determination that addresses issues the taxpaye r 12 raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable 13 law and administrative procedures have been met, and 14 balances the need for the efficient collection o f 15 taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that 16 any collection action be no more intrusive tha n 17 necessary . Sec . 6330 (c) (3) (C) . 18 The record reflects that the settlement 19 officer properly verified that all the legal and 20 procedural requirements have been met . The settlement 21 officer confirmed, using a transcript of petitioner's 22 accounts, that assessments were properly made for the 23 year at issue, that appropriate and timely notice s 24 were sent regarding the assessments, and tha t 25 petitioner was properly informed of her rights with Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 respect to the proposed levy action . 2 The record also reflects that petitione r 3 does not dispute in the petition that the settlement 4 officer committed an abuse of discretion . Any issue 5 not raised in the petition is deemed conceded b y 6 petitioner . In addition, petitioner never provide d 7 the requested information to determine whether she was 8 entitled to claim the grandchildren or daughter a s 9 dependents . We have frequently and consistently held 10 that an officer does not abuse any discretion if the 11 taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested 12 information . The settlement officer also addressed 13 the issues petitioner raised in her hearing request . 14 The settlement officer explained that petitione r 15 needed to provide the necessary information to prove 16 dependency . Finally, the record reflects that the 17 settlement officer properly balanced the need fo r 18 efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's 19 legitimate concern that any collection be no more 20 intrusive than necessary . 21 Petitioner has not asserted any spousal 22 defenses, or otherwise offered any additiona l 23 collection alternatives . See sec . 6330(c)(2 ) 24 Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded . 25 Rule 331 (b) (4) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 Petitioner has not presented any evidence or 2 persuasive arguments to convince us that responden t 3 abused his discretion . We therefore conclude tha t 4 respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding 5 respondent's proposed levy action to collect fro m 6 petitioner outstanding tax liabilities for 2004 and 7 2005 . 8 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 9 entered for respondent and an appropriate order will 10 be issued sustaining the determination set forth in 11 the Notice of Determination Concerning Collectio n 12 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated July 13 13, 2007, upon which this case is based, regarding the 14 unpaid liabilities for the taxable years 2004 an d 15 2005 . The order will also grant respondent's motion 16 for summary judgment . 17 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 18 fact and opinion in this case . 19 (Whereupon, at 2 :29 p .m ., the bench opinion 20 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 21 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888