TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Suzette D. Craft
Docket Number: 21414-03S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/06/2009
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 SUZETTE D . CRAFT, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 21414-03S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . 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 Specia l Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Los Angeles, California, on February 12, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order of dismissal will be entered granting respondent's motion and dismissing this case upon the ground of mootness . (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . March 6, 2009 SERVED Mar 09 2009 1fV 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 Docket No . 21414-03S February 12, 2009 3 Craft v . Commissione r 4 The Court has decided to .render oral findings of 5 fact and opinion in this case, and-the following represents 6 the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 7 Section references contained in this bench opinion 8 a-re-to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, i n 9 effect for the relevant period . Rule references are to the 10 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 11 This section 6330(d) proceeding is conducted as a 12 Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 13 and Rules 170 through 175 . This bench opinion is mad e 14 pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and 15 Rule 152 . 16 This case is before the Court on Respondent's 17 Motion to Dismiss as Moot, filed February 2, 2009 . 18 Petitioner's Status Report, filed July 21, 2008, advances 19 several reasons . why this case should not be dismissed as 20 moot, although we note that at the time her Status Report 21 was filed, Respondent's motion had not yet been filed . A 22 hearing was conducted on Respondent's motion on February 9, 23 2009, in Los Angeles, California . Petitioner, who resided 24 in California at the time the petition was filed, appeared 25 pro se . Kevin Coy appeared on behalf of Respondent . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ti 4 1 The underlying facts in this case are not i n 2 dispute and are easily summarized . In December 2002 , 3 Respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) with 4 respect to Petitioner's then outstanding 1995 and 200 5 5 Federal income taxes and related items (Petitioner's income 6 tax liabilities) and .Petitioner was duly notified of the 7 event . See section 6320(a) . In response to such notice, 8 she timely requested and participated in an administrative 9 hearing in which she challenged the appropriateness of the 10 filing of the NFTL . See sec . 6320(b) . 11 The issues raised by Petitioner during th e 12 administrative hearing cannot be precisely determined from 13 what has been submitted by the parties . Giving her the 14 benefit of an incomplete record on the point, we proceed as 15 though she disputed the existence and the amount of he r 16 income tax liabilities, argued that the NFTL was more 17 intrusive than a collection action had to be, and offered 18 collection alternatives to the NFTL . It is clear tha t 19 Petitioner considers the NFTL improper, and further she 20 considers Respondent's determination not to withdraw th e 21 NFTL to be an abuse of discretion . It is likewise as clear 22 that Petitioner considers her correct income tax liabilities 23 to be less than assessed, and now paid . 24 This case, which was commenced in 2003, has been 25 set for trial no less than seven times . It'has been Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Q 5 1 continued numerous times and stayed for a period in order to 2 allow Petitioner to address and resolve some serious health 3 issues that frustrated her attempts to proceed to in a 4 meaningful way . From .her presentation at . the hearing, we 5 are satisfied that she has made significant progress i n 6 resolving those health issues . 7 It is undisputed that-as a result of a series of 8 payments made over the years since this case has bee n pending, Petitioner's income'tax liabilities have been pai d 10 in full, and in due course Respondent has caused to be filed 11 a Release of Notice of Federal Tax Lien with respect to the 12 NFTL . Ordinarily, the payment of the underlying tax 13 liability or liabilities in cases such as this results in 14 dismissal upon the ground of mootness, usually upo n 15 agreement of both parties . Here, however, Petitione r 16 objects to the-dismissal of this case even though her income 17 tax liabilities have been paid and the NFTL filed wit h 18 respect to those. liabilities has been released . 19 At the administrative hearing Petitioner apparently 20 took the position, as she does here, . that under th e 21 circumstances Respondent should withdraw the NFTL because it 22 should never have been filed ., See sec . 6323(j) . Petitioner 23 argues that the release was not sufficient to correct an y 24 adverse consequences to her credit that might result from 25 the filing of the NFTL . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 6 1 According to Petitioner the case is not moot . 2 addition to her position with respect to-Respondent's 3 failure or refusal to withdraw the NFTL, she claim s 4 entitlement to relief because of what she considers to have 5 been improper, intimidating and otherwise discourtes y 6 treatment she received from Respondent's employees (she 7 specifically excludes Respondent's counsel from thi s 8 complaint) . She further claims that she is entitled to a ruling from the Court that the NFTL was improperly filed . 10 She recognizes that the Court has no refund jurisdiction in 11 this case, see Green-Thapedi v . Commissioner , 126 T .C . 1 12 (2006), but continues to advance her claims that her income 13 tax liabilities have been overpaid . 14 According to Petitioner she would not have paid 15 those income tax liabilities if she knew that the cas e 16 could or would be dismissed as moot as a result . She claims 17 that she was misled into believing that she could pay th e 18 liabilities and proceed to trial on the merits of he r 19 claims . She attributes this expectation in part upon the 20 Court's encouragement that she attempt to resolve the case 21 without the need for trial, when confronted with 22 Respondent's apparent settlement position, it turned out 23 that the only way to do so was to pay the tax . He r 24 misunderstanding of her rights might also stem from the use 25 of the word "removed" in Respondent's Motion for Continuance Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1' of Trial, filed September 26, 2007 . No doubt Responden t 2 used the term "removed" to mean-"released"', but Petitioner 3 might very well have taken the term to-mean "withdrawn" . 4 Whatever the source of her misunderstanding, it remains tha t 5 she misunderstood the consequences of paying her income tax 6 liabilities . When she did', the controversy ended and, for 7 all intent-and purposes, the Court's role came to an end . As we have noted in Green-Thapedi , payment of the ta x 9 terminated the controversy and proceeding to resolutio n 10 other than by dismissal as moot would-have to be what could 11 only be considered an advisory opinion, which we declined to 12 do . The same is true here . Furthermore, as we noted i n 13 Gerakios v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-203 "we generally 14 have no jurisdiction" to grant relief, in response to a 15 taxpayer's claim that the taxpayer .has been mistreated by 16 Respondent's employees, or that the filing of a Notice of 17 Federal Tax Lien adversely affected that taxpayer's credit 18 rating . The complaints made and the relief sought by the 19 taxpayer in Gerakios are similar to the complaints made and 20 relief sought by Petitioner in this proceeding . 21 Nevertheless, when the tax was paid in Gerakios and the tax 22 lien was released, the Court stated that the taxpayer had 23 "received all the relief to which he is entitled unde r 24 sections 6320 and 6330,"_ and the case was dismissed as moot . 25 During the hearing in this case, Petitioner was Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 . 8 1 advised that she might have remedies independent of this 2 proceeding . She should consider whether she does an d 3 proceed accordingly . As it stands, Respondent's motion is 4 well-made and will be granted . 5 To reflect the foregoing, an order will be entered 6 granting Respondent's motion-and dismissing this case upo n 7 the ground of mootness . 8 10 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 9 :30 a .m .. ., the bench opinion in the 11 above-entitled matter was concluded .) 12 / / 13 1 4 15 16 17 // 18 / ./ 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 /./ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888