TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert C. Hood
Docket Number: 25949-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/03/2008
Pages: 4

RECORDED SERVIC E FILE S UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C. 20217 ROBERT C . HOOD Petitioner, * V . Docket No . 25949-07s COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Respondent . * * ORDER 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 Knoxville, Tennessee, on June 17, 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 Judge DATED : Washington, D .C . July 3, 2008 SERVED JUL - 7 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph R . Goeke June 17, 200 8 2 Hood v . Commissioner Docket Nos . 25949-07 S 3 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion, and the following 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact an d 7 opinion in this case . The oral findings of fact and 8 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case . 10 These oral findings of fact and opinion are 11 made pursuant to section 7459 of the Internal Revenue 12 Code . Hereinafter references to sections are t o 13 sections in the Internal Revenue Code . 14 This case was tried pursuant to section 7463 15 which was in effect when the petition was filed an d 16 was elected by the petitioner . Pursuant to section 17 7463(b), the decision in this case shall not b e 18 reviewed in any other court . 19 This case involves respondent's attempts to 20 collect employment taxes for quarters in 1994, 1995, 21 1996 and 1997 . The case is before the Court on 22 Respondent's motion for summary judgment . 23 Petitioner maintains that he didn't owe 24 these employment tax liabilities which arose in 25 connection with petitioner's operation of certai n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 bingos . Petitioner maintains that the employees in 2 question were not his employees but rather employees 3 of the persons who operated the bingos, and he merely 4 supervised those operations . The question before us 5 and that's raised by the motion for summary judgment 6 is whether it is appropriate for the petitioner t o 7 challenge these underlying liabilities in the context 8 of this collection case . 9 The present case involves respondent' s 10 attempts to file a notice of Federal tax lien . In a 11 prior collection action, respondent sent petitioner a 12 final notice of intent to levy regarding the sam e 13 underlying liabilities . Petitioner did not seek a 14 hearing with respect to that notice of intent to levy 15 which was served upon him in February 2006 . 16 Therefore, respondent argues that petitioner may not 17 raise the underlying liabilities in the presen t 18 collection case . 19 Respondent also argues that petitioner 20 signed an agreement to have the employment tax 21 liabilities assessed against him, and in fact , 22 petitioner produced as an exhibit that very agreement 23 and admits that he signed it . He claims that he 24 signed it in error . Unfortunately for the petitioner, 25 the fact that he did sign the agreement and it was Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 submitted to respondent and respondent acted in good 2 faith regarding the agreement, and therefore , 3 petitioner waived at that time the right to a hearing 4 on the underlying liability, coupled with the fac t 5 that petitioner had an earlier opportunity for a 6 hearing on the employment taxes in the context o f 7 respondent's levy related to those liabilities leads 8 us to find that petitioner may not raise th e 9 underlying liabilities in this case pursuant to 10 section 6320 and 6330 . 11 We find that the law requires this outcome, 12 although we are sympathetic to petitioner's plight , 13 since it appears he may have some argument relative to 14 the underlying liability . However, that argumen t 15 cannot be raised in the context of this case under 16 section 6320 and 6330, and we are left with n o 17 recourse but to enter a decision for respondent . 18 This ends the Court's oral findings of fact 19 and opinion in this case . 20 (Whereupon, at 10 :15 a .m ., the bench opinion 21 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 22 // 23 // 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888