TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Jay H. Peterson
Docket Number: 14015-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/03/2008
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 JAY H . PETERSO N Petitioner, * V. Docket No . 14015-07L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU E Respondent . * * ORDE 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 Joseph R . Goeke at Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 27, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Joseph Robert Goeke Judg e DATED : Washington, D .C . April 3, 2008 SERVED APR 18 2008 .66 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke 2 February 27, 200 8 3 Jay H . Peterson v . Commissioner Docket No . 14015-07L 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render oral 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 7 The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied 8 upon as precedent in any other case . 9 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 10 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue 11 Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d 12 Procedure . Hereinafter section references are to the 13 Internal Revenue Code . 14 Petitioner appeared pro se in this case and 15 Respondent was represented by Mr . Mark H . Howard . 16 At the time the petition was filed in this case 17 the Petitioner resided in Provo, Utah . This case arose as 18 the result of the petition pursuant to section 6330(d ) 19 seeking review of a notice of determination involving a 20 proposed levy to collect a frivolous return penalty under 21 section 6702 for the taxable year ended December 31, 2001 . 22 However, the notice of determination found in favor o f 23 Petitioner and held that "collection is not allowed to 24 proceed with enforced collection actions . " 25 Petitioner nevertheless seeks our jurisdiction in Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 an attempt to obtain a refund of federal income tax paid for 2 2001 . The parties have filed cross-motions : Petitioner' s 3 for summary judgment, and Respondent's to dismiss fo r 4 failure to state a claim under Tax Court Rule 40 . We will 5 deny Petitioner's and grant Respondent's motion for th e 6 reasons explained herein . 7 Respondent argues at length regarding the history 8 of Petitioner's federal income tax problems in prio r 9 litigation in other forums . And Petitioner argues we must 10 consider his refund claim in the context of any section 6330 11 action regarding 2001 . We find the only facts that ar e 12 relevant are not in dispute and are present in the 13 pleadings . 14 Petitioner received a Final Notice of Intent to 15 Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing dated October 28, 16 2006 . This notice related solely to a civil penalty of $500 17 for the period ending December 31, 2001 plus interest o f 18 $17 .93 . Petitioner made a timely request for an Appeals 19 hearing after receiving the notice and the Appeals officer 20 found that the Respondent could not collect the penalty and 21 interest as it was not applicable to Petitioner . Petitioner 22 then petitioned this Court seeking a refund of income taxes 23 paid for 2001 . Respondent is not seeking to collect an y 24 income taxes, penalty or interest from Petitioner for the 25 taxable year ended December 31, 2001 based on the pleadings Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 and notice of determination . 2 Given these uncontested facts, this case i s 3 controlled by Greene-Thapedi v . Commissioner , 126 T .C . 1 4 (2006), in which the Court held we have no jurisdiction to 5 determine an overpayment or to order a refund whe n 6 Respondent has agreed that there is no unpaid tax upon which 7 a levy could be based and that no further collection action 8 should be taken for the year in question . Given that those 9 facts are the facts of this case we have no jurisdiction to 10 consider Petitioner's claim for refund and we shall deny 11 Petitioner's motion, grant Respondent's motion to dismiss 12 for failure to state a claim . 13 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 14 and opinion in this case . 15 (Whereupon, at 8 :49 a .m ., the bench opinion in the 16 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 17 18 // 1 9 20 21 // 2 2 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888