TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Guido A. Improta
Docket Number: 25833-06L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/06/2009
Pages: 11

UNITED STATES TALC COURT Washington , D. C. 1,2021 7 GUIDO A . IMPROTA, Petitioner v . ) (Docket No . 25833-06L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . V1 C E _jTAT_ fS-1P'. JUDGE FILE S 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 transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the abdve case before Judge Thomas B . Wells at Tampa, Florida , on 'November 19, 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) Thomas B. Wells Judge Dated : Washington, D . C . January 6, 2009 SERVED JAN 0 9 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Thomas' B . Well s 2 Guido A . Improta v . Commissioner Docket No . :25833 .06L 3 November 19, 200 8 4 This is the case of Guido, G-u-i-d-o, A . Improta, 5 I-m-p-r-o-t-a, Petitioner versus Commissioner o f 6 Internal Revenue, Respondent,', Docket Number 25833-06L . 7 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 8 authority granted by Section 17459(d) and Rule 152 . 9 Unless otherwise noted all Se ction references are t o 10 the Internal Revenue Code and' Rule references are to 11 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 12 In the instant case f, the instance case is a 13 collection action based upon s Notice of Determination 14 pursuant to Section 6330 . The amount of Petitioner' s 15 liabilities as of October 29,2007 were for taxable 16 year 2000, $7,856 .16 ; taxable year 2001, $29,805 .00 ; 17 taxable year 2002, $42,679 .301 ; taxable year 2003 , 18 $49,394 .90 . The statutory interest continues t o 19 accrue on the unpaid income tax liabilities set forth 20 above . 21 The issue to be deeded is whethe r 22 Respondent's settlement officer abused her discretion 23 in determining that it was appropriate to proceed with 24 Respondent's collection action with regard t o 25 Petitioner's 2000, 2001, 20021 and 2003 taxable years . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 None of the facts have been stipulated . Th e 2 Petitioner resided in Bgnita Springs, Florida at the -r3 k/ 4 3 time the petition was filed ¶n the instant case . 4 The Petitioner failed to file income tax 5 returns for his 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxabl e 6 years . On May 24, 2005 Respondent sent a Notice o f 7 Deficiency for those years t! Petitioner . On June 14 , 8 2005 Petitioner send Respon d nt acknowledging receip t 9 of the Notice of Deficiency, but challenging 10 Respondent's authority to issue such notice . 11 Petitioner did not file a p e kition with the tax cour t 12 after receiving the notice . Accordingly, the 13 deficiencies were assessed on November 21, 2005 . 14 On February 27, 2006 Respondent sen t 15 Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice o f 16 Your Right to a Hearing for the Petitioner's 2000 , 17 2001, 2002, and 2003 taxable years . On March 25, 200 6 18 Petitioner mailed Respondentja request for a 19 collection due process hearing . The request states 20 that the Petitioner was requesting collectio n 21 alternatives, was contesting the existence or th e 22 amount of the tax because he ; did not receive a Notic e 23 of Deficiency and wanted pro of that ample law and 24 administrative procedures haid been met pursuant t o 25 Section 6330 . The Petitions' r also stated that he Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 621, 8-4888 5 1 intended to make an audio recording of the hearing . 2 On June 30, 2006 Settlement Officer Sharo n 3 Patterson sent Petitioner a letter scheduling a 4 telephone conference for August 15, 2006 . In that 5 letter Settlement Officer Patterson explained tha t 6 Petitioner could not disput e the liability because hi s 7 file showed that he received the Notice of Deficienc y 8 dated May 24, 2005 . Additionally, she explained that 9 if he wanted collection alternatives considered h e 10 must one, provide a completed collection informatio n 11 statement with financial attachments ; two, provide a 12 Form 656 Offer in Compromise~with the application fee ; 13 and three, file and provide copies of his 2004 an d 14 2005 income tax returns . She asked that these item s 15 be provided by July 24, 2006, . 16 On July 25, 2006 Settlement Office r 17 Patterson received a letter rrom Petitioner stating he 18 wanted a face-to-face hearing in Fort Myers, Florida 19 with an appeals officer, not a settlement officer and 20 that he wanted to raise certain issues . Settlemen t 21 Officer Patterson determine d that the Petitioner' s 22 arguments were frivolous and that his request for a 23 face-to-face hearing would not be granted . 24 After Petitioner failed to contac t 25 Settlement Officer Patterson for the August 15, 2006 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 conference she requested that he provide information 2 for consideration by Septembler 7, 2006 . N o 3 information was received and a Notice of Determination 4 upholding the proposed collection action was sent t o 5 Petitioner on November 20, 2 0 06 . 6 On December 14, 2006 Petitioner filed the 7 petition in the instant case . A supplement to the 8 petition was filed on January 16, 2007 in whic h 9 Petitioner requested that his case be remanded to 10 appeal so that he could be given a face-to-fac e 11 hearing . After reviewing Pettitioner's file from the 12 appeals hearing in filing anlanswer, Respondent file d 13 a motion to remand on March , 2007 so the Petitioner 14 could be given a face-to-face hearing as he requested . 15 On May 16, 2007 the Court ordered that th e 16 case was remanded to Respondent's Appeals Office and 17 that an administrative hearing should be offered "a t 18 Respondent's appeals office ocated closest t o 19 Petitioner's residence (or at such other place as may 20 be mutually agreed upon) at $ mutually agreed upon 21 date and time but no later than July 2, 2007" . 22 Pursuant to the CoIrt' s order Petitioner's 23 case was assigned to Settlement Officer Maria Fales in 24 Respondent ' s appeals office in Plantation , Florida , 25 which is the closest appeals office to Petitioner' s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6281-4888 7 1 residence . After reviewing loth Petitioner's appeals 2 hearing file and audit file hich included the Notice 3 of Deficiency sent to Petiti ner on May 25, 2004 an d 4 his letter dated July 14, 2004 acknowledging receip t 5 of that letter , Settlement Officer Fales sen t 6 Petitioner a letter dated June 14, 2007 scheduling a 7 face-to-face hearing for June 18, 2007 . That letter 8 explained to Petitioner that he needed to provide a 9 completed collection information statement and signed 10 tax returns for the 2004 and,'2005 tax years so that 11 Settlement Officer Fales cou~d consider collectio n 12 alternatives . 13 In a letter dated June 16, 2007 Petitioner 14 informed Settlement Officer Vales that he did not want 15 his hearing to be held in Plantation, Florida, that it 16 should be held at the Internal Revenue Service offic e 17 in Fort Myers, Florida and that it must take place o n 18 June 26, 2007 . 19 On June 21, 2007 Settlement Officer Fales 20 sent Petitioner as letter explaining that the closes t 21 office to Petitioner was located in Plantation , 22 Florida providing him with the addresses of all fou r 23 Florida appeals offices and rescheduling Petitioner' s 24 hearing for June 26, 2007, the date requested by th e 25 Petitioner . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 -4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 8 The Petitioner sent another letter dated June 23, 2007 to Settlement Officer Fales disagreeing with the location of the hearing and stating he would not be available until August 14, 2007 . In that letter Petitioner stated that the actions of Settlement Officer Fales constituted harassment against him . Since Petitio n r failed to provide any information during the suppl mental appeals hearing Settlement Officer Fales determined that is was appropriate to proceed with the proposed collection action based upon her review~of the files an d transcript information . On July 3, 2007 Respondent sent to Petitioner a supplemental Notice o f Determination . Section 6331(a) provides that th e Commissioner may levy upon the property of a taxpayer if the taxpayer is liable to ,,pay tax and fails to pay such tax within ten days aft er notice and demand fo r payment . Before doing so, however, Section 6330(a ) requires the Commissioner t provide the taxpayer with written notice of the propos ed levy and opportunity for collection due proces s earing . Under Section 633 (c)(2)(A) the taxpayer may raise any relevant issue r e ating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy at a collo i ction due process hearing Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62 '8-4888 9 1 including appropriate espousal defenses, the 2 appropriateness of collection actions and alternatives 3 means of collection which may include the posting o f 4 bond, the substitution of otter assets and a n 5 installment agreement of an cjffer in compromise . 6 Under Section 6330(c)(2)(B) the taxpayer may 7 challenge the existence of t1ie amount of th e 8 underlying tax liability for any taxpayer if he did 9 not receive a Notice of Defi iency for the tax 10 liability or did not otherwise had an opportunity to 11 dispute the tax liability . ] n the instant case a 12 Notice of Deficiency was sent to Petitioner wit h 13 respect to his 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax years o n 14 May 24, 2005 as evidence by the Postal Service Form 15 3877 postmarked on such date . Moreover, in a lette r 16 dated June 14, 2005 Petitioner acknowledged receiving 17 the Notice of Deficiency . Accordingly, Petitioner was 18 not permitted to challenge the existence or the amount 19 of the underlying liabilities during this appeals o f 20 his hearing . 21 The standard of reiew of the appeals 22 officer's determination were the validity of the 23 underlying tax liability is of properly an issue . 24 It's whether the appeals offcer abused his or he r 25 discretion in making the det rminations under Section Heritage Reporting corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 6330, Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) . 2 Section 6330(c)(3) requires that the appeal s 3 officer's basis for determination include one , 4 verification from the Secretary that the requirement s 5 of any applicable law or administrative procedure have 6 been met ; two, considerationlof whether, the 7 consideration of any allowab~e issues raised by th e 8 taxpayer ; and three, review pf whether the propose d 9 collection action balances t e need for the efficient 10 collection of taxes with a 1 gitimate concern of the 11 person that any collection a tion be no more intrusive 12 than necessary . 1 3 14 The supplemental Notice of Determination in the instant case indicates that the settlement office r 15 examined the administrative f ile, determined that all 16 requirements of law and admi istrative procedures have 17 been met in issuing the noti e of the intent to levy . 18 Additionally, even after bei g afforded a secon d 19 hearing , Petitioner did not rovide any financial 20 information or signed copies 1, of a 2004 or 2005 ta x 21 return which Respondent's re ords reflected had never 22 been filed . 23 Petitioner ' s argum nt that the appeal s 24 hearing should have been held in Fort Myers, Florida 25 instead of Plantation , Florida, Respondent ' s appeal s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628''- 4888 1 1 1 office closest to Petitioner's residence, is without 2 merit . The settlement officer complied with all the 3 hearing and determination requirements set out i n 4 Section 6330(c)(1) through (3) . 5 At trial the Court inquired of Petitione r 6 what issues Petitioner would raise if the instant case 7 were remanded to Respondent' appeal office fo r 8 further hearing . Petitioner replied that he woul d 9 argue only that Respondent cannot tax him without "a 10 valid taxing statute" . Such argument is frivolous and 11 we, therefore, do not believe it would be necessary or 12 productive to remand the inst .ant case to Respondent's 13 appeals office to consider such arguments . Se e 14 Lunsford v . Commissioner , 11 T .C . 183, 189 (2001) . 15 ' the foregoing we hold that ther e 0~ ilro basis of 'r By/ 16 was no abuse in discretion in determining that it i s 17 appropriate for Respondent's collection action to 18 proceed . To reflect the foregoing decision will be 19 entered allowing Respondent o proceed with th e 20 collection of Petitioner's u paid liabilities as set 21 forth in Respondent's Notice of Determination in the 22 instant case . The foregoing represents the Court's 23 oral findings of fact and op~nion in this case . This 24 concludes this case . Thank you . 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62$-4888 1 (Whereupon, at 1 : 4 p .m ., the bench opinio n 2 was concluded .) 1 2 3 4 5 // 6 // 7 // 8 // 9 / / 10 // 11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 1 5 16 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 2 1 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // Heritage Reportin (202) 628 Corporation 4888