TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Susan E. Lytle
Docket Number: 25276-11L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/05/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SEC SUSAN E.· LYTLE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E .R Docket.No. 25276-11L. 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 transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Chicago, findings of.fact and opinion rendered at Illinois, on June 21, 2012, containing his oral the pages of the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D . C . July 5, 2012 SERVED Jul 09 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 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke Lytle v. Commissioner Docket No. 25276-11L June 21, 2012 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is rendered pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 7459 (b) ; hereinaf ter section re f erences are to the Internal Revenue Code . The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 6330 (d) (1) . This case involves Respondent' s attempts to collect income taxes from the Petitioner via levy. Because the underlying tax liability is not disputed, our review is based upon the abuse of discretion, Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. No. 12 (2000). Some of the facts of the case have been stipulated and the Petitioner testified at trial. At the time the petition was filed in this case, the .Petitioner resided in Geneva, Illinois. Petitioner and her husband, who is not a party to the case, filed their joint Federal income tax return for the year 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 2009 in May of 2010. The return reported tax of $34,284, but remittances with. the return only amounted to $16.,723. Petitioner did not pay the underlying balance. Petitioner did, however, make some .subsequent payments toward the underlying balance. By November 2010 the assessed underlying balance was $14,468. Petitioner does not contest that this was the correct amount of liability assessed. In November 2010 Respondent issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. Petitioner timely filed a request for a Collection Due Process hearing and sought an installment agreement from the Respondent. Petitioner's position was that the installment agreement should be in the amount of $500 per month, and they indicated that was the maximum amount they felt like she should have to pay. Petitioner completed a Form 4033-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals. On this form Petitioner reported total income of $7,934 per month and expenses of $6,673 per month, for net disposable income of. $1,261. Actually at trial Petitioner confirmed that this form was completely inaccurate in its analysis of Petitioner's income, and Petitioner alleged that it 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 also understated expenses. In. the petition filed which precipitated this case, the Petitioner alleges that she and her husband had net disposable income per month of $884.62. Section 6330 provides that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue cannot proceed with collection of taxes by way of levy until the taxpayer' s been given notice and the opportunity for administrative hearing. That's just what transpired in the present case. As previously stated, because the underlying liability is not in dispute, our review is limited to abuse of discretion. In analyzing our review, we focus particularly on whether it was an abuse of discretion for the settlement officer to decline to entertain an installment agreement with the Petitioner. The Internal Revenue Service is authorized to enter into installment agreements if such agreements will facilitate full or partial collection of the tax liability. Section 6159 (a) . In general the acceptance or rejection of an installment agreement is discretionary. Treasury Regs Section 301.6159-1(c) (i). Eligibility for an installment agreement is based on the taxpayer' s current financial condition. Maselli v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-19. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 43 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 Given the circumstances of this case, including the allegations in the petition, the errors in Petitioner's financial information submitted to the settlement officer, and Petitioner's testimony at trial, it is clear that the settlement officer did not abuse discretion in declining to give the Petitioner an installment agreement for the payment of taxes in the amount of $500 per month, because such amount was greatly les·s than the amount of taxes Petitioner could pay based upon Petitioner's financial situation, the level of income, and Petitioner' s own allegations in the petition. Given our conclusions, we sustain Respondent's collection action, and the decision will be entered for the Respondent. This ends the Court's oral findings of facts and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:45 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) - // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888