TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Marquerite Komondy
Docket Number: 5450-10L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/25/2011
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CLC MARQUERITE KOMONDY, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 5450-10 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of February 11, 2011, containing her oral opinion rendered in this case. the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa on transmit the to the pages of findings of fact and 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. February 25, 2011 SERVED Feb 28 2011 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 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa February 11, 2011 Komondy v. Commissioner Docket No. 5450-10L THE COURT: THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER I 3 ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE 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 references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for 2004 and 2005, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case involving a proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for the taxable years 2004 and 2005 2226. This collection review matter is before the 69)C.. Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 23, 2010. Anthony Parent appeared on behalf of petitioner, and Frank Louis appeared on behalf of a respondent. // 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 FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in Connecticut at the time the petition was filed. Petitioner failed to file timely a Federal income tax return for each of the years at issue. Respondent prepared a substitute for return for petitioner based upon information from third party payors, and respondent sent petitioner a deficiency notice on August 11, 2008, proposing tax liabilities for each tax year 2004 and 2005. Petitioner failed to file a petition to contest the deficiencies. Respondent thereafter assessed the proposed tax liabilities in 2009. Petitioner failed to pay the tax assessments so respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice-Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. The notice advised petitioner that respondent intended to levy to collect the unpaid taxes for 2004 and 2005 and informed petitioner that she could receive a hearing. Petitioner timely filed a request for a hearing with Appeals by submitting Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. The hearing request covered each of the years at issue. 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 Petitioner did not dispute the underlying liabilities in her hearing request. Instead, the hearing request was filed by petitioner's representative to "protect clients' due process rights." As set forth in the Determination Notice, petitioner failed to participate in a scheduled telephone conference or to respond to any attempts to contact her. Her authorized representative called the Settlement Officer to ask that the Determination Notice be issued.' The Determination Notice was issued upholding the levy action to collect her liabilities for 2004 and 2005. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court requesting that we review whether respondent abused his.discretion in sustaining the lien filing and collection by levy. Petitioner does not challenge the existing assessments or tax liabilities in the petition. Rather, petitioner's representative asserts that she would owe very little tax once appropriate tax returns were prepared for petitioner and her husband. As mentioned previously, respondent filed a summary judgment motion. The Court scheduled the motion for a hearing in Hartford, Connecticut on February 7, 2011. Petitioner failed to attend or file an objection. Petitioner's representative explained 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 6 that petitioner is in the process of preparing returns for the delinquent years. He admits that actually preparing amended returns for the years at issue has no bearing on the pending summary judgment motion. OPINION We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, 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 materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of:law. See Rule 121(b), Electric Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). 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 decide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 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 fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23(1999) Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that the collection action should proceed with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 2004 and 2005. Respondent is therefore entitled to judgment in his favor. We briefly explain collection procedures. If any person liable for Federal tax liability neglects or refuses to make payment within ten days of notice and demand, the Commissioner is authorized to collect the tax by levy on that person's property. See sec. 6331(a). At least 30 days before enforcing collection by levy on the person's property, the Secretary is obliged to provide the person with a final notice of intent to Ievy, including notice of the administrative appeals available to the person. See sec. 6331(d). The person is entitled, upon request, to an administrative review hearing before Appeals. 6330(b) (1). If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or e she may raise at that hearing any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy. Sec. 6330(c) (2). Relevant issues include any appropriate 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 spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection, and possible alternative means of collection, such as an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise. Sec. 6330(c) (2) (A). After the hearing, the Appeals officer is required to make a determination that addresses issues the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c) (3) (C). The record reflects that the Settlement officer properly verified that all the legal and procedural requirements have been met. The Settlement officer confirmed, using a transcript of petitioner's accounts, that assessments were properly made for each year at issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sent regarding the assessments and that petitioner was properly informed of her rights with respect to the proposed levy action The record also reflects that the Settlement Officer properly balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary. 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 9 Petitioner has not raised any challenges to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousal defenses, or otherwise offer any collection alternatives. See sec. 6330(c) (2). Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b) (4). Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that respondent abused his discretion. We therefore conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding respondent's proposed 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 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated January 27, 2010, upon which this case is based , regarding the unpaid liabilities for the taxable years 2004 and 2005. The order will also grant respondent's motion for summary judgment. THIS CONCLUDES THE. COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) / // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888