TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ivan Gale Carney
Docket Number: 1318-07L
Judge: Thornton
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 12/30/2009
Pages: 5

T .C . Memo . 2009-31 0 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T IVAN GALE CARNEY, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 1318-07L . Filed December 30, 2009 . Ivan Gale Carney, pro se . G . Chad Barton , for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N THORNTON , Judge : Pursuant td section ' 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent ' s determination to proceed with a levy . All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended , and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules o f Practice and Procedure . SERVED DEC 3 0 2009 FINDINGS OF FAC T 0 June 21, 2006, respondent sent petitioner a final notic e of intent to levy and of the right to a hearing (the notice) wit h respect to petitioner's unpaid employment tax liability a s reported on Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return , for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 . In response, petitione r timely submitted to respondent a . Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing . On the Form 12153 he stated, a s the rea ons he did not agree with the notice, that he wa s "unaware of these quarterlys", that he "want[ed] to review m y papers on the 1040's",_and,that he was incarcerated and would no t be abl e to respond until after August 24, 2006 . On November 7, 2006, the settlement officer, sent :a-letter t o petitioner at three separate addresses listed in respondent's records acknowledging receipt of the Form 12153 and .scheduling a telephone conference for November 28, .2006 . . Between November 1 7 and 20, 2006, the settlement officer received all three letters : back from the U .S . Postal Service with notations that the letter s were undeliverable . After searching respondent's records an d finding ~a new address for petitioner, on November 21, 2006, the settlement officer sent another letter to petitioner with the same hearing date . By a faxed letter dated November 26, 2006, petitione r requested that the hearing be rescheduled because he did not receive notice of the hearinguntil November 25,' 2006, and neede d more time to prepare . On November 28, 2006, the settlement officer spoke with petitioner by telephone ahd'proposed rescheduling the hearing to-December 15,'2006'. Petitioner told the settlement officer that-he .would contact him-the following day, November 29, 2006, to let him know whether December :-15,- 20,06, was an acceptable-date . The settlement officer advised petitioner that if he failed to call back, the appeal would b e closed . Petitioner did not call back . By notice of determinatio n (thedetermination) dated December 13,'2006, and signed,by Sue D . Cody, Appeals Team .Manager, the Appeals Office sustained th e proposed levy . Petitioner-filed a timely. petition in this Cour t to review .the determination . As assignment of error, th e petition states : The redetermination that I received was found to be totally in error . I .am not in receipt of any document that establishes that ,I had taxable income for the year .2003 . The letter I received from Sue D . Cody, agent for the-Internal Revenue Service on December 13, 2006 for tax period ending 3/31/03 for tax debt was completely fabricated . Petitioner refused to enter into stipulations for trial a s 'required by Rule 91( a) and this Court' s standing pretrial- order . 'Petitioner refused to stipulate, among other things, his place of residence and refused to, affirm to the Court that he resided in Kansas when he filed his petition, although hi s petition shows a Kansas mailing address . At trial he declined the-opportunity to testify .- He objecte d unsuccessfully to-respondent's introduction into evidence .,-of the' administrative record . After trial petitioner submitted a ,brief reiterating his evidentiary 'objection, asserting that he'ha d insufficient "taxable income .for the years in :question to warrant the filing of a,tax-return", and making .various frivolous arguments . OPINION Construed liberally , petitioner ' s' assignments of error seek to chal lpp enge ,. his underlying ,:liability ,, as respondent concedes he is entitled to do , under section 6330 ( c)(2)(B) The transcript of account included in the administrative record, shows tha t respondent has assessed petitioner',s unpaid employment tax liabilitjies that are the subject of respondent's collection action .~I Petitioner has neither alleged nor shown, facts tha t would s ,,ggest that these transcripts are in error and has not otherwise raised an issue before us regarding - the underlying liability that we can properly adjudicate . 3, See Poindexter v . Commissioner , 122 T .C . 280, 285-286 (2004), affd . 132 Fed . Appx . Cir ., 2005) . Nor has petitioner raised any legitimat e 2None of petitioner's objections cast doubt on the admissibility of the administrative record or the propriety of considering it for the, purposes for which respondent offered it . 3Pe;titioner's assertions regarding his "taxable income are immaterial to,.his employment tax-liabilities that are .the subject . of this~lcollection proceeding 5 - issue or alleged or shown facts to prove that the Appeals Office otherwise erred in making its determination . See Rule 331(b)(4) ("Any issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded .") . Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless . Respondent has not asked that we impos e a section 6673 penalty . We strongly warn petitioner that he ma y be subject to a section 6673 penalty, even upon the Court's own motion, if he persists in maintaining proceedings in this .Court' primarily for delay or continues to press frivolous arguments . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered . for respondent .