TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Susan Improta
Docket Number: 25760-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/07/2009
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAXCOURT Washington , D. C. 2j021 7 SUSAN IMPROTA, Petitione r v . ) ocket No . 25760-07L 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 Judge Thomas B . Wells at Tampa, Florida , onNovember 19, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact ajnd opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Thomas B . Wells Judg e Dated : Washington, D . C . January 7, 2009 SERVED JAN 0 8 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Thoma B . Well s 2 Docket No . : 25760-07L Susan!Improta v . Commissioner 3 November 19, 200 8 4 This is the case o Susan Improta , 5 Petitioner, versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 0 6 Respondent, Docket Number 25 6,y-07L . 18k' 7 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 8 authority granted by Section,7459(d) and Rule 152 . 9 Unless otherwise noted all Selction references are t o 10 the Internal Revenue Code and all Rule references ar e 11 to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 12 The instant case isan appeal from a 13 collection based upon, a collection action based upo n 14 a Notice of Determination regarding a Notice of Filing 15 of the Federal Tax Lien pursuant to Section 6320 . Th e 16 amount of Petitioner's liabilities as of March 28, 17 2007 were for taxable year 200, $3,446 .24 ; fo r 18 taxable year 2001, $3,476 .37 ;''ifor taxable year 2002, $ 3, 73'i . 9O; 19 taxable year 2003, 641 .08 . Statutory ISV 20 interest continues to accrue on the unpaid income ta x 21 liabilities set forth above . 22 The issue to be decided is whethe r 23 Respondent's settlement officer abused her discretion 24 in determining that it was appropriate to proceed with 25 the Respondent's collection action with regard t o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Petitioner's 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxable years . 2 None of the facts have been stipulated at the time the 3 petition in the instant case as filed . Th e 4 Petitioner resided in Blenita Springs, Florida . 5 Petitioner failed to file in c me tax returns for he r 6 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 tax ble years . 7 On May 24, 2005 Respondent sent a Notice o f 8 Deficiency for those years to Petitioner . On June 14 , 9 2005 Petitioner sent Respondent acknowledging receipt 10 of the Notice of Deficiency bait challenging 11 Respondent ' s authority to issue such notice . 12 Petitioner did not file a petition with the tax cour t 13 after receiving the notice . accordingly, the 14 deficiencies were assessed on November 21, 2005 . 15 On September 29, 20F6 Respondent sen t 16 Petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing an d 17 Your Right to a Hearing under I .R .( C . 6320 for th e Ts,' 18 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 tax ble years . 1 9 20 On October 16, 2006IRespondent received a request for a collection due Process hearing from 21 Petitioner . The request for 'a collection due process 22 hearing received on October l16, 2006 also contested a 23 Notice of Intent to Levy . 24 On October 19, 20051 Respondent had sent t o 25 Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy for her 2000, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxable years . Therefore , 2 Petitioner was granted an equivalent hearing regarding 3 that levy . A decision letter; was sent to Petitione r 4 upholding the levy action on,October 16, 2007 . 5 Petitioner's request for a hearing state d 6 that the Petitioner was requesting collectio n 7 alternatives, was contesting the existence or the 8 amount of tax because she dick not receive a Notice of 9 Deficiency and wanted proof that ample law an d 10 administrative procedures had been met pursuant to 11 Section 6330 . The Petitioner) also stated that she 12 intended to make an audio recording of the hearing . 13 On December 14, 2066 Respondent sent 14 Petitioner a letter informing Petitioner that her case 15 had been received for a consideration in the Memphis 16 appeals office . On March 7,'2007 a letter was sent 17 to Petitioner requesting that she contact th e 18 settlement officer assigned to her case within 14 days 19 to schedule a hearing . 20 On March 13, 2007 Petitioner mailed a letter 21 to Respondent stating that she only wanted to have an 22 in-person hearing that she requested that the hearing 23 be held in Fort Myers, Florida . She also requeste d 24 copies of Forms 4340 for the years in issue . On July 25 5, 2007 Respondent sent Petitioner copies of the Form s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 4340 for her taxable years, 2c00, 2001, 2002, and JJ~ 2 2003, and a Form 433A, Collection Informatio n 3 Statement for her to complete if she wanted collectio n 4 alternatives to be considered 5 Respondent also inf rmed Petitioner that he r 6 case was being transferred to the closest appeal s 7 office to Petitioner's residence which was Plantation, 8 florida . On August 3, 2007 Settlement Officer Mari a 9 Fales mailed Petitioner a letter scheduling a face-to- 10 face conference in the Plantation appeals office o n 11 August 20, 2007 and requesting that Petitioner provid e 12 a completed Form 433A and tax returns for the taxabl e 13 years 2000 through 2006 withi 14 days . 14 On August 8, 2007 Petitioner sent Settlement 15 Officer Fales a letter stating that she had bee n 16 "called out of town on a personal family matter, " 17 would not be back until late October . 18 On August 22, 2007 Settlement Officer Fales 19 advised Petitioner that she could not kee p 20 Petitioner's case open until late October without the 21 information requested from Pe titioner and tha t 22 Petitioner had 14 more days to provide information for 23 consideration . Petitioner sent another letter t o 24 Settlement Officer Fales on August 28, 2007 that 25 failed to provide any of the requested information . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 Consequently, on October 16, 4007 Respondent sent 2 Petitioner a Notice of Determination upholding the 3 proposed collection action . 4 In the case of a to payer who is liable to 5 pay any tax and neglects or refuses to pay the ta x 6 after demand, the amount due including interest and 7 penalties shall be a lien in favor of the Unite d 8 States upon on property and right to property of th e 9 taxpayer . Section 6321 . 10 Under Section 6320,',within five busines s 11 days of filing a Notice of Tai Lien Respondent mus t 12 provide the taxpayer with written notice of the filing 13 and of the opportunity of a collection due proces s 14 hearing . The conduct of the hearing, review of th e 15 determination and suspension of collections ar e 16 governed by the Rules of Section 6330, Sectio n 17 6320(c) . 18 Under Section 6330(6)(2)(A) the taxpayer may 19 raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax o r 20 the proposed levy at a collection due process hearing 21 including appropriate espousal defenses, the 22 appropriateness of collection actions and th e 23 alternatives means of collection, which may include 24 the posting of the bond, substitution of other assets, 25 and installment agreement oran offer in compromise . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 Under Section 6330(c)(2)(B) the taxpayer may 2 challenge the existence or the amount of th e 3 underlying tax liability for ny taxpayer if he di d 4 not receive a statutory Notice of Deficiency for th e 5 tax liability or did not othewise have an opportunit y 6 to dispute the tax liability . 7 In the instant casela statutory Notice o f 8 Deficiency was sent to Petitioner with respect to her 9 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxable years on May 24 , 10 2005 . The Petitioner acknowledged receiving th e 11 Notice of Deficiency in a letter dated June 14, 2005 . 12 Accordingly, Petitioner was not permitted to challenge 13 the existence or the amount of the underlyin g 14 liabilities during her appeals office hearing . 15 Standard of review Of the appeals officer' s 16 determination or the validity of the underlying ta x 17 liability is not is not properly an issue, whether the 18 appeals officer abused his or ' her discretion in making 19 the determination under Section 6330, Sego v . 20 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) . 21 Section 6320(c) andl Section 6330 (c) (3) 22 require that the appeals officer's basis fo r 23 determination include one, verification from the 24 Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law 25 or administrative procedure hive been met ; two , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 consideration of any allowable issues raised by th e 2 taxpayer ; and three, review o f whether the propose d 3 collection action balances thle need for the efficien t 4 collection of taxes with a le'igitimate concern of th e 5 person that any collection action be no more intrusiv e 6 than necessary . 7 In the instant case the settlement officer 8 examined the administrative file and found that al l 9 requirements of law and administrative procedures had 10 been met in the filing of Notice of Federal Tax Lien . 11 Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide any 12 financial information or signed copies of any ta x 13 returns which Respondent's re ords reflected had not 14 bee filed . Such information was necessary for th e 15 settlement officer to conside$ any collectio n 16 alternatives . 1 7 Petitioner's argument that the appeal s 18 hearing should have been hel d in Fort Myers, Florid a 19 instead of Plantation, Florida, the appeals offic e 20 closest to the Petitioner's r sidence, is withou t !' 21 merit . Petitioner makes no argument that would make 22 it necessary or productive for the Court to remand th e 23 instant case to Respondent's appeals office fo r 24 further consideration . See Liinsford v . Commissioner , 25 117 T .C . 183 , 189 (2001) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 The settlement officer complied with all of 2 the hearing and determination requirements set fort h on the basis of 3 in Sections 6330(c)(1) through (3) . the 1513 10 4 foregoing we hold that there ', was no abuse o f 5 discretion in determining that it is appropriate for 6 Respondent's collection action to proceed . 7 To reflect the foregoing the decision will be entere d 8 allowing Respondent to proceed with the collection of 9 Petitioner's unpaid liabilities as set forth in th e 10 Notice of Determination in the instant case . 11 The foregoing represent the Court's oral 12 findings of fact and opinion in this case . This 13 concludes this case . Thank You . 14 (Whereupon , at 1 :53 a .m ., the bench opinion 15 in the above - entitled matter Was concluded . ) 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-14888