TAX COURT OPINION

Case: R. Lee & Beverly Querry
Docket Number: 23335-10L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/12/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 R. LEE AND BEVERLY QUERRY, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 23335-10L O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Diane L. Kroupa at Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 15, 2012, containing her oral the proceedings of fact and opinion. findings of the Court shall transmit the the pages of to the above case before Judge 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. April 12, 2012 SBTVED APR 1 3 2012 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 R. LEE AND BEVERLY QUERRY V. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 23335-10L MARCH 15, 2012 3 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. 4%e 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 by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for 2007, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This case is before us to review a determination by Respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals) concerning a collection action for 2007. Petitioner R. Lee Querry appeared on behalf of Petitioners, and Fred Green appeared on behalf of Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The record reflects or the parties do not dispute the following facts. petitioners resided in Arizona when they filed the petition. 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 Petitioners had an underpayment of tax for 2007. Respondent sent Petitioners a Final Notice- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing advising Petitioners that Respondent intended to levy to collect unpaid taxes for 2007, and informing Petitioners that they could receive a CDP hearing. Shortly thereafter, Petitioners paid the tax owing for 2007, but did not pay the accrued interest. Petitioners timely filed a request for a hearing with Appeals in response to the levy notice. Respondent assigned a settlement officer to conduct Petitioners' CDP hearing. The settlement officer held a telephonic CDP hearing with Petitioners in July 2010. Petitioners stated that they did not agree with the interest assessed because Respondent held estimated tax payments during the period in which interest accrued that exceeded any tax Petitioners owed. Respondent applied part of the refund Petitioners were entitled to receive for 2009 to pay the unpaid accrued interest for 2007. The settlement officer explained that Appeals could not abate the accrued interest as interest accrues on any underpayment of tax. 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 Respondent issued Petitioners a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 informing Petitioners that becausA. sines the 2007 tax liability was paid in full there would be no enforced collection action or levy. Petitioners timely filed a petition with this Court. OPINION Petitioners argue that interest should be abated for 2007 because they claim Respondent held estimated tax payments exceeding any tax they owed during the period that interest accrued on the 2007 tax underpayment. We are sympathetic to Petitioners. We nonetheless have no authority to abate the interest. Interest may be abated only in limited situations where there has been ministerial or managerial errors, or delay by the IRS. Sec. 6404. Petitioners may make their plea to Congress, who enacts the law we are required to follow. It is unclear from the record if any action was taken on Petitioners' claim to abate interest on Form 843 that they filed July 20, 2010. Petitioners paid in full the 2007 tax liability subject to the Notice of Determination. Respondent therefore no longer needs nor intends to levy to collection Petitioners' tax liability for 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 2007, which gave rise to the petition in this case. As there is no remaining case or controversy relating to 2007 to sustain the Court's jurisdiction, this action is no longer justiciable. See Greene- Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006); Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2004-152. Accordingly, the petition shall be dismissed as moot relating to 2007. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the Determination Notice, dated September 20, 2010, upon which this case is based regarding 2007. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888