TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Vernon G. Carlsen
Docket Number: 25564-15L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/10/2017
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 VERNON G. CARLSEN, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 25564-15 L. ) ) ) ) ORDER 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Birmingham, Alabama, on January 25, 2017, containing his oral fmdings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 21, 2016, will be denied, the case will be remanded to respondent's Appeals Office and an appropriate Order will be issued. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 10, 2017 SERVED FEB 1 3 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke 23 January 25, 2017 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Vernon G.· Carlsen v. Commissioner Docket No. 25564-15L 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 opinion is rendered pursuant to the authority provided in Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section references will be to the Internal Revenue Code. This case is before the Court on 18 Respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to 19 20 21 22 Tax Court Rule 121. Respondent maintains that there is no actual dispute, that the case is susceptible to resolution based upon summary judgment. Petitioner objects to this motion and 23 maintains that the case was abruptly subject to the 24 issuance of a notice of determination after the 25 Petitioner had submitted bank records supporting 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 Petitioner's claim that Petitioner could not afford 2 3 4 5 6 7 to make any of the tax payments requested. This is a collection due process case and involves a proposed levy for tax liabilities arising in 2011. Petitioner maintains that any collection action would cause a hardship and that the bank records submitted to the settlement officer support 8 Petitioner's assertion of a hardship. 9 10 11 12 13 14 We have reviewed the declaration submitted by the settlement officer in support of the motion for summary judgment and in particular are troubled by the summary and recommendations attached to the notice of determination. On Page 5, of that document the settlement 15 officer asserts as follows: On August 19, 2011 we 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were contacted by Mr. Kirkland. We discussed our financial documents. We again proposed to streamline the installment agreement. Mr. Kirkland indicated that your financial status has changed within the last month. We were asked for additional time to discuss the issues with you and to provide additional documents. We granted until August 25, 2015 to provide any other documents or to let us know if you agree with the proposed agreement. On August 24, 2015 we received a letter dated August 24, 2015 from 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 Mr. Kirkland and bank statement for July of 2015. 2 3 4 5 Your case is being closed back to compliance. End of quoted material. There is absolutely no explanation in the summary and recommendation as to why the case was 6. abruptly closed. The summary and recommendation, 7 8 9 however, inarticulately, describes the circumstances and indicates that Mr. Kirkland had provided information. It does not provide any explanation why 10 that information was insufficient to sustain 11 Petitioner's position and does not explain why there 12 13 14 15 16 were no further discussions with Mr. Kirkland on behalf of the Petitioner. Given these circumstances we do not believe that the record in this case supports a finding that there's not an underlying fact dispute about 17 whether the actions of the settlement officer were 18 19 20 21 22 arbitrary and capricious. In fact, it would appear that the actions of the settlement officer. may have been premature and not properly considered all the factual information submitted by the Petitioner. In any event, we do not believe the record 23 - submitted by Respondent in support of the motion for 24 25 summary judgment supports such a motion pursuant to the rules of this Court, which require that the 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 moving party establish that there is no factual 2 3 4 5 6 7 dispute. Therefore, we will deny the motion for summary judgment. Given the circumstances of this case, we believe it would be in the best interest of the parties that the case be remanded to Appeals and we 8 will so order. We would suggest :hat remand be 9 conducted by a different settlement officer than the settlement officer originally assigned to the case prior to this date. (Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com