TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Walter George Drummond, Sr.
Docket Number: 1584-10S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/06/2010
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 WALTER GEORGE DRUMMOND, SR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 1584-10S, 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 the transcript Petitioner and to respondent a copy of of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Góeke at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 15, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial'. the pages of In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. December 6, 2010 SERVED DEC - 9 2010 3 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 Judge Joseph Robert Goeke Walter George Drummond, Sr. v. Commissioner Docket No. 1584-10S November 15, 2010 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue - Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to Section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court and, as stated previously, this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any sother case. This bench opinion is rendered pursuant to Tax Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 152, and rule references here and after will be to the Tax Court Rules of Practice. Section references, unless otherwise noted, will be to the Internal Revenue Code. This case is before the Court based upon Respondent's motion for summary judgment. The petition was filed contesting Respondent's proposed Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 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 collection action against the Petitioner seeking the collection of income tax and interest liabilities arising for the year 2006. The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Section 6330. The Court held a hearing on Respondent's motion for summary judgment on November 15, 2010, and Petitioner was heard to explain his position. Summary judgment is appropriate pursuant to Rule 121 when the underlying facts in the case are not in dispute. In this case Petitioner's primary argument is that he does not owe the underlying tax liability, so it is necessary for us to first determine whether this argument is properly before the Court in the present case. Respondent asserts that Petitioner was sent a notice of deficiency for the year 2006 income tax liabilities on January 7, 2008. Petitioner at the hearing on Respondent's motion for summary judgment acknowledged receipt of this notice of deficiency, and acknowledged that he did not file a petition with this Court contesting the underlying liabilities in the notice of deficiency. on June 2, 2008, Respondent assessed the deficiency and interest for 2006 and on August 31, 2009, Respondent sent to Petitioner a final 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 5 notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing. In this notice Respondent advised Petitioner that Respondent intended to levy to collect the unpaid 2006 liabilities, and offered Petitioner the right to a hearing concerning this collection action. Petitioner filed a request for a hearing on September 14, 2009. Petitioner did not submit documentation to the settlement officer assigned to his case that would support an alternative payment agreement to Respondent' s collection activity, and Petitioner primarily argued that he did not owe the underlying liabilities in the information he submitted to the settlement officer. In the petition filed in this Court seeking review of Respondent's determination to proceed with collection action, the Petitioner asserted that his 2006 liability was improperly determined by Respondent. The first question we must decide is whether it is appropriate to allow Petitioner to contest the underlying tax liability. Section 6330 (c) (2) (B) provides that a taxpayer cannot raise the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer received a notice of deficiency regarding that tax liability. , The facts uncontested in this case that the Petitioner did 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 6 receive a notice of deficiency and failed to petition the Tax Court relative to that liability. Therefore by statute we cannot consider. Petitioner's underlying tax liability for the year 2006. In a case where the underlying -tax liability is not before the Court, the Court reviews the determination made by Respondent's appeals office regarding the collection activity proposed by Respondent under an abuse of discretion standard, Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000) . Because Petitioner did not provide sufficient detail to support an alternative collection action and because Petitioner may not raise issues relative to the underlying tax liability, we find that there was no abuse of discretion by the settlement officer in sustaining the proposed levy, and that the settlement officer fairly balanced Respondent's need for collection action against the intrusion upon the Petitioner as a result of this collection action. We take into account the fact that . \ Petitioner failed no actually submit an offer and compromise although he alluded to the fact that he would like to have a compromise with Respondent of the liability. His failure to submit an offer and compromise causes his assertion that one should be 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 2s 7 considered to fail. Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo•2004-73. We understand Petitioner' s frustrations because he believes that his 2006 tax liability was originally determined in error by Respondent, but his failure to file a petition in the Tax Court causes us to determine that we simply have no authority to review that tax liability in the context of this collection due process case. As a result, we are left with no alternative but to determine that a decision will be entered sustaining Respondent's proposed collection action. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888