TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Glenn M. Evans
Docket Number: 11075-08L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/30/2011
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RMM GLENN M. EVANS, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 11075-08 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall the pages of transmit the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of March 1, 2011, containing her oral rendered in this case. the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa on findings of fact and opinion In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 30, 2011 SERVEDMar312011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa March 1, 2011 Glenn M. Evans v. Coèmissioner Docket No. 11075-08L THE COURT:i THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF.FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTSITHE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted in section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section referencés are to the Internal Revenue Code for the years at issue as later defined, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a aollection review case involving a proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for 1991, 1992 and 1993 (the years at issue). This collection review matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January 24, 2011. Jon Dowat åppeared on behalf of petitioner, and Michael Shelton appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 St. Cloud, Minnesota, when he filed the collection review petitiion. Petitioner became involved in various livestock partnershi s promoted by Walter J. Hoyt, III. The Hoyt livestock tax shelters are TEFRA partnerships that ha e frequently come before this Court, and the facts underlying the operation of these shelters have been w 11 described in several earlier opinions. See gener 11y Hav v. Commissioner, T:C. Memo 2009-265; McIntyre v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo, 2009 305; Durham Farnis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-159. 2 Respondent issued notices of Final Part-nei-ship Administ ative Adjustment (FPAAs) for each of the years at issue that led to a series of TEFRA partnership-level proceedings. After conclusion of the-partnerahip-level proceedings, respondent mailed notices of computati nal adjustments to petitioner for each of the'years at issue. - There were also some partner-level proceedings. Petitioner t f ailed ato pay the tax assessments, so respondent sent petitioner a Final Notiice--Not ce of In ent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. The notice advised petitioner that respondent intended to levy . t·o collect the unpaid Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 taxes for the years at issue and informed petitioner that he could receive a hearing. Petitioner timely filed a request for a hearing with Appeals. Petitioner failed to participate in the scheduled telephone conference. Petitioner also failed to raise any non-frivolous arguments or propose any collection alternatives. Respondent issued the Determination Notice upholding the levy action to collect his tax liabilities for the years at issue. A discrepancy arose on whether petitioner had proposed an offe -in-compromise, so the collection matter was remanded for a supplemental hearing. 1 Petitioner continued to make groundless arguments and, again, failed to proPose any offer-in-compromise or other collection altërnative. Respondent issued a Supplemental Determination Notice, again upholding the levy action to collect the liabilities for 1991, 1992 and 1993. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court, requesting that we review respondent's determination to collect the unpaid tax liabilities from petitioner's investments in the Hoyt partnerships stemming back twenty some years. Petitioner has made various arguments ovèr time while this collection Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 matter has been pending for almost four years, including having a s pplemental determination made. We find no merit to any of his arguments. For example, petitioner argues that he should be entitled t a theft loss, as he has an unsigned closing agreement that the Commissioner entered into with various other Hoyt investors. First, we fail to see how the universal settlement initiative that the ommissioner-offered to the Hoyt investors allowing°them net cash out-of-pocket costs somehow translates into a dëductible theft loss. We further note that an unsigned closing agreement has no wei ht. See -Burton v. Commissioneri T.O. Memo. 2009-60 Petitioner also argued respondent could not proceed with collection while petitioner had two other docketed casës at the Court. They were Docket Nos. 24661-07 and 24302-07. They indeed involve petitióner. They arose, however, from affected items notices of deficiency that asserted the accuracy-related penålty from the Commissioner's computational adjustments to his 1991, 1992 and 1993 years following the onclusion of the TEFRA partnership-level proceedings of the Hoyt partnerships. At no time during this collection a matter did petitione provide any requested collection Heritage Reporting Corporation 202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alternative to respo dent . As mention d previously, respondent filed a summary judgment motion. The Court scheduled respondent' s motion or a hearing in Chicago, Illinois. Shortly before the scheduled hearing, petitioner filed his own motion for summary judgment. OPINION We are ask a to decide whether to grant summary judgment . S mmary judgment is intended to expedite -litigation nd avoid unnecessary and expens ive trials . Sëe , e . g . , FPL Group , Inc . v . Commissioner, - 116 T . C. 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other. acceptable mat ials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any mate iál fact and that a decision may be rendered as a mat er of law. See Rule 121(b) ; Elect. Arts, Inc."v. Comnissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002) . The parties agree that we have de novo review of the theft oss because the theft loss item was not properly at issue in the TEFRA proceedings of the Hoyt partnershipá . Respondent asserts, and we agree, however, that petitioner fail d to prove the year in which a' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 -4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 loss occurred. By p4titioner' s own admission, the alleged loss did not occur in the three taxable years at issue. Thus, where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion, Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000) . We must de ide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitkarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact þr law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T. . 19, 23 (1999) . Based upon our examination of the e tire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining to proceed with collection of petitioner' s unpaid liabilities få>r the years at issue. Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We briefly explain collection procedures. If any person liable for Federal tax liability neglects or refuses t o make payment within notice and demand, the Commissioner is authorized to collect the tax by levy on that person' s property . See sec . 6331(a) . The Secretåry is obliged to provide the person with a final notice of intent to levy, Heritage Reporting Corporation 202) 628-4888 1 6; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 including notice of the administrative appeals available to the person. See sec. 6331(d) . The person is entitled, upon request, to an administrative revie hearing before Appeals. Sec. 6330 (b) (1) . If the axpayer requests a hearing, he or she may raise at tha hearing any relevant issues relating to the unpa d tax or the proposed levy. Sec. 6330 (c) (2) . Relevant issues include any appropriate spousal defenses, ch llenges to the appropriateness of collection, and poss ble alternative means of collection such as an installment agreement or an of fer-in-compromise . Sec. 6330 (c) (2) (A) . After the hearing, the Appeals officer is required to makë a d termination that addresses issues the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable law and a iministrative procedures have been met, and balances th need for the efficient collection of taxes ith the legitimate concern of the person that any coll ction action be no more intrusive than necessary. Séc 6330 (ci) (3) (C) . The record reflects that the Settlement Officer properly verified that all the legal and procedural requirements have been met. The Settlement of f icer conf irmed, us ing a transcript of petitioner' s accounts, . that assessments were properly made for each Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 -4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | 10 year at issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sent regarding the assessments, and that petitioner was prope ly informed of his rights with I respect to the proposed levy action. The record also reflects that t-he Settlement Officer properly balanced the need, for efficie t collection of taxes with petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary. Petitioner has not raised any valid challenges to the apŠropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousál defenses, or otherwise offer any collection alter atives. See sec. 6330 (c) (2) . Accordingly, these i sues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331 (b) (4) . Petiéioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that respondent abused his discretio We find no merit to any issue or item petitioner riised in his own motion for summary judgment . Wå therefore conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding respondent's proposeÃ levy action. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 11 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated April 16, 2008, as Supplemented in a Supplemental Determination Notice dated August 3, 2010, upon which this case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilities for the taxable year 1991, 1992 and 1993. The order will also grant resp ndent's motion for summary judgment and deny pe itioner's cross-motion for summary j udgment . THIS CONCL DES THE COURT' S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPlNION IN HIS CASE . (Whereupon at 4:20 p.m., the bench opinion in the- above-entitled matter was concluded.) / / / / / // // // // // // // / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ï