TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Arthur G. Krol
Docket Number: 3332-08L
Judge: Armen
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 10/29/2008
Pages: 21

T .C . Memo . 2008-24 2 UNITED STATES TAX COURT AR HUR G . KROL, Petitioner v . COMMISSION R OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t In 2005, P case was called for trial . After the how cause order, A appeared and dismissal of the case . R assesse d P failed to pay the amount owing, In- 2007', P, through A, requested the R eceived a notice of-deficiency for ey, A, timely filed a° petiti-on, fo r n P's behalf. Neither P nor A 2002 . P's attor redetermination appeared when th Court issued a s consented to the deficiency . Afte proposed to levy administrative r view and sought only to challenge the underlying liabi ity . R rejected the challenge on th e basis of I .R .C . ec . 6330(c)(2)(B) and issued a notice sustaining the proposed levy . I n of determination A, filed a levy action with this 2008, P, through ly to challenge the underlyin g Court, seeking o liability . R fi ed a motion for summary judgment ; the Court then issue explain why A pe I .R .C . sec . (cid:127)6673 proceedings unre a show cause order requiring A to sonally should not be liable under a)(2)(A) for multiplying th e sonably and vexatiously . , SERVED OCT 2 9 ZGO8 - 2 - Held : R's motion for summary judgment shall be granted . I .R .C . sec . 6330(c)(2)(B) . Held , further , A is liable personally, under I .R .C . sec . 6673(a)(2)(A) for excessive costs . Jerry R . Abraham , for petitioner . John W . Stevens and Steven L . Karon , for . respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINIO N ARMEN,J Special Trial Judge : This case is a collectio n action involving a proposed levy . See sec . 6330(d) ; Rules 330- 334 .1 Pending before the Court are (1) respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment, filed May 27, 2008, pursuant to Rule 121, and (2) the Court's Order And Order To Show Cause, dated June 27, 2008 . In his motion, respondent moves for a summary adjudication in respondent's favor "because, pursuant to I .R .C . 6330(c)(2)(B), pet'itioner's receipt of the statutory notice of deficienc y precludes him from challenging the underlying tax liability fo r taxable year 2002, the only error assigned in the petition ." In its order, the Court directed petitioner's counsel o f record Jerry R . Abraham to show cause why the Court should no t 1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ; all Rule references are to the Tax CourtRules of Practice and Procedure . - 3 conclude that he (i .e Jerry R . Abraham) did not multiply the proceedings unreasona lyand vexatiously and why,, therefore ; the Court should not requ re him, pursuant .to section .6673 (a) (2) (A) , to pay personally the excess costs, expenses, .and attorney's fees reasonably incurred b cause°of his conduct .' . At the time tha t the petition was filed, both petitioner and ' Attorney Jerry R . Abraham resided in the State of Michigan . Background Our summary of t e relevant facts necessarily begins with petitioner's prior ac ion in this Court (dkt .' .No .14170-05) . because that prio r ac ion is not only the linchpin o f respondent's . summary j udgment motion in the=..instant actio n (docket No . 3332-08L) but also=central to our show cause order . A . Petitioner's ction for Redetermination at'Dkt . No . 14170-0 5 By a notice of d e ficiency dated . April 25, 2005, responden t determined a(cid:127)deficien c in petitioner's Federal income tax fo r the taxable year 2002 . See sec . 6212(a) . The deficiency was attributable to respon ent's determination that petitioner ha d 2 For convenience, we'shall hereinafter generally refer to petitioner's counsel of record Jerry R . Abraham as Attorney Jerry R . Abraham . I' In 'that notice tax under sec . 6651(a) accuracy-related penal disregard of rules or respondent also determined an addition to (1) for failure to, timely file and a n y under sec . 6662(a) for negligence or regulations . r 4 - failed to include on his income tax return for 2002 gambling winnings in the aggregate amount of $415,625, as reported by casinos in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Detroit, Michigan . ' In response to the notice of deficiency, petitioner commenced a case in this Court by timely filing a petition for redetermination of deficiency, which case was assigned docket No . 14170-05 . See secs . 6213(a), 7502, 7503 . The petition',, which was filed "by and through counsel", was subscribed by Attorney Jerry R . Abraham ase"Attorney for Petitioner" . Attorney Jerry R . Abraham was (and remains) a member of the bar of this Court . In the petition for redetermination, petitioner disputed the deficiency in,,tax, . as well as .the addition to tax and accuracy- related penalty . The substantive paragraphs of the petition and the prayer fork relief recited as follows : 4 . The amount of the tax liability as set forth in said Notice of Deficiency is based upon an erroneous computation of taxpayer's gambling winnings as no' offset is provided for taxpayer's gambling losses as allowed,by Internal Revenue Code § 165(d) . 5 . Commissioner's inaccurate calculations stem from resulting inaccuracies relating both to taxpayer's gambling winnings and losses . WHEREFORE, Petitioners [sic] respectfully request that this Court disallow these revisions as pertaining to Petitioner's gambling winnings and losses and'abat e ' The inclusion in incomeof unreported gambling winnings also served-to decrease otherwise allowable itemized deductions claimed by petitioner on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions . See sec . 68 . the relevant por accompanying pe n ion of the existing-liability with any lties . In due course, a d pursuant to notice ; provided by certified mail, dkt . No . 14170- 5 was called for trial on June 12, 2006, a t Detroit, Michigan . ' owever, at that time,-there was n o appearance by or on b half of petitioner . In contrast, counse l for respondent appea r counsel for responde n of prosecution .' In response to t e Court's inquiry regarding the absence o f Attorney Jerry R . Abr ham, counsel for respondent surmised a s follows : I talked to Mr . Abraham a'month and a half . ago, he returned my calls . The only issue he said was, his client still needed''to get documentation to him showing the losses from t e gambling income . That was his only issue . That's why h memo, because whe me, I was going t losses, then make client never gave offset the gambl i didn't originally get .a Tax Court Attorney Jerry Abraham got them to take them, and if he had som e an adjustment . My guess is, hi s .him any evidence of any losses .to g income . 5 The case was c Abraham, acting on be "for all trial proce e lied at Detroit because Attorney Jerry R . alf of petitioner , had designated that city ings in this matter . " 6 The Stipulati o Jerry R . Abraham on J June 9, 2006 . Of Facts had been executed by Attorne y ne 5, 2006, and by respondent's counsel o n ' Subsequently, espondent's counsel reduced his motion to writing and,,on June 13, 2006, filed a Motion To Dismiss For . Lac k Of Prosecution . Couns l for respondent served . his motion on Attorney Jerry R . Abra am by mail on June 12, 2006 . . The Court responded as follows : - 6 - Well, that might be so, but this is an opportunity for Petitioner's counsel to come to Court and indicate to the Court what he wants the Petitioner to do with his case . ; Merely not to show is not a satisfactory response . Therefore, the Court is going to order a show cause hearing to Mr . Abraham as to why he should not be '!I sanctioned for failure to appear . * * * On June 13, 2006, the Court served an Order To Show Cause dated June 12, 2006, on Attorney Jerry R . Abraham directing him to appear on June 19, 2006, at Detroit, Michigan, and show cause why ; the Court should not impose a sanction on him for excessive costs pursuant to section 6673(a)(2) . At the show cause hearing, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham appeared, as did counsel for respondent . The transcript for that hearing includes the following colloquy : MR .'ABRAHAM : Basically, back on June the 6th I made a call to the District Counsel attorney and I advised him that my client still had not given us, the documents that we needed and that I told him, in ' addition', that if he did not give it to me by June the 7th, we would sign a consent .[') * THE COURT : A consent to what? MR . ABRAHAM : To judgment . * * * * * * * 8 Notwithstanding the professed lack of documentation, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham never filed a . motion for continuance, either before or at the trial session . - 7 - THE COURT : don't object to for lack of pros And, counsel., are you now saying yo u heygranting of that motion [to dismiss cution] ? MR. . ABRAHAM } At this time I do-not . THE , COURT : that I can see p counsel of reco r that either the appear heret o understand that ? Well, first, let me say .this,- sir : . . . . rhaps some room for confusion, but as ,,it's your obligation to make sure atter is properly taken care of or . you form the Court as to the status . Yo u MR . ABRAHAM : Yes . I do . THE COURT : . All right . I'm going to grant the motion to dismis °for lack of prosecution and deem that you have satisfied the motion to show cause, Mr . Abraham . Thank you very much . MR . ABRAHAM : 'Thank you . . Thereafter, by Order Of .Dismissal And Decision entered and served July-3, 2006, the Court granted respondent's Motion To Dismiss For LackOf .Pr secution, .thereby sustaining all of . respondent's .determina ions in the April 25, 2005 notice of deficiency . Petitioner did no file any posthearing motion or .a notice of appeal . Accordingl , the Court's Order . Of Dismissal And Decision at dkt . . No . 1 170-05 became final . in due course . See secs . 6214(d), 7481(a) 1), 7483 . Thereafter, respondent assessed the deficiency, additi n to tax, and accuracy-related penalty, together with statutor interest . See secs . 6215(a), 7459(d) ; see also sec . 6601(a) . - 8 - Petitioner's Collection Action at Dkt . No . 3332-08 L As previously stated, the instant case (dkt . No . 3332-08L) is a collection action involving a proposed levy . The commencement of that action had as its origin petitioner's failure ,to pay, upon notice and demand made pursuant to ; sectio n 6303(a), the liability arising out of petitioner's above- described action for redetermination of deficiency . Th e collection action developed as follows : On August 2, 2007, respondent sent petitioner a Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A Hearing (final notice of intent to levy) in respect of petitioner's outstanding liability for 2002 . In response to the final notice of intent t o levy, petitioner, acting through his power of attorney (POA) Jerry R . Abraham, filed with respondent a Form 12153, Request fo r a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing .9 The reason given for objecting to the proposed levy was as follows : Taxpayer requests a-re-open audit . He know [sic],has located evidence of gambling losses to offset winnings and negate the assessed tax . Following a telephone conference between Attorney Jerry R . Abraham and respondent's settlement officer, respondent's Appeal s r 9 Petitioner's power of attorney Jerry R . ;Abraham is the same Jerry R . Abraham who was petitioner's counsel of record in the action for redetermination of deficiency at dkt . No . 14170-05 and is the same Jerry R . Abraham who is petitioner's counsel of record in the instant collection action (dkt . No . 3332-08L) . For convenience, we shall hereinafter refer to petitioner's power of attorney Jerry R . Abraham as Attorney Jerry R . Abraham . 9 - Office sent petitione a Notice Of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) nder Section 6320 and/or .6330 (notice of determination) dated anuary 18,-2008 ., In . the notice o f determination,, respon 01 ent,'s Appeals Offide sustained the propose d levy . The Attachment .t C the notice of determination states, in, part, as follows : ISSUES RAISED BY THE TAXPAYE R In your written request, Form 12153, your POA raised the liability as an issue . At the telephone are not able 'to CDP [Collection opportunity to d conference, your POA was advised you aise the liability as an issue under ue Process ] because you had a prior so . Your POA agreed . * * OTHER ISSUES RAISED . No other issues ) acollection alt e ere raised . Your POA did not ask for rnative . In response to th e notice of determination, .'-petitione r timely filed the insta it collection action (levy action), whic h action was assigned do ket'number 3332-08L . The petition was subscribed by both pe t 'tioner individually and by Attorney Jerry ! R . Abraham as counse l or petitioner . The two (and onl y substantive paragraphs of the petitio n provide as follows : 5 . The .underlyin liability is not accurate . The original deficien y assessment was based primarily upon gambling winnings but it did not include any - 10 - information relating to relevant offsetting losses . These offsetting losses will greatly reduce this taxpayer's taxable income as well as his corresponding tax liability . Evidence of these losses was provided to the Service, but no adjustments have been made to decrease the current liability . Therefore, taxpayer requests ;'that collection ceases pending the accurate . adjustment of the 2002 tax liability . 6 . Taxpayer has presented documentary evidence of gambling flosses which should be offset against his recorded gambling winnings . This evidence has been presented to the Service, but has not yet resulted'in any adjustment . After filing an Answer , respondent filed his Motion For Summary Judgment . See Rules 36, 121 . As previously stated , respondent moves for a summary adjudication in respondent's favor "because, pursuant to I .R .C . [section] 6330(c)(2)(B), i , petitioner's receipt of the statutory notice of deficienc y precludes him from challenging the underlying tax liability fo r taxable year 2002, the only error assigned in the petition ." The heart of respondent's motion lies in paragraphs 11 an d 12thereof, which paragraphs state as follows : 11 .! Because the petitioner received the notice of deficiency in sufficient time to petition the Tax Court and did do so, it was improper for petitioner t o challenge the tax liability to which the statutory notice of deficiency .related . 12 . : Because it was improper for the taxpayer to challenge in the CDP hearing the existence or amount of petitioner's liability with respect to taxable year 2002, the validity of petitioner's underlying tax liability is not properly at issue before this Court . [ Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604 (2000)] . - 11 - On June 13,~ 200 8 petitioner , through Attorney Jerry R . Abraham, filed a Res p nse In Opposition to respondent ' s motion . Therein petitioner co tends that respondent ' s reliance on .section , 6330(c)(2-) (B) is err o eous for two reasons . First, the gener is to allow an' .a "alternatives to any given contex does limit the s of a liability, "did not otherwi tax liability . " 1_statutory directive of Section 6330' grieved taxpayer to raise any and all collection" which are appropriate i n Second, while-Section 6330(c)(2)(B ) ope challenges [sic] to the accuracy t does not do so. when the' taxpaye r e have an opportunity to dispute such Id . the Court issued its' Order'And Order T o Show Cause . The 'four 's order directed Attorney Jerry R . Abraham to show cause why .the Court should not conclude that he (i .e Attorney Jerry'R .'Abr ham) multiplied the proceeding s unreasonably and vexa iously and why, therefore, the Court should not require him, purs ant to section 6673(a)(2)(A), to pa y personally the excess reasonably incurred b On . August 18, 20 8, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham filed a Response To Order T o how Cause . In it, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham asserts that request "an accurat e and, toward that end , audit as an alternati which he knew to be inaccurate . " further asserts that 12 - "collection alternative" and that a collection alternative is .specifically identified by section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii) as an appropriate issue to be considered at a collection-related hearing . Attorney Jerry R . Abraham then concludes as follows : Section 6330(c)(2)(B) * * * clearly limits the abilit y to challenge an underlying tax liability as generated through a deficiency assessment . However, the statute [section 6330(c)(2)(B)] also clearly provides that such limitation for challenge cannot apply when a taxpayer "did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability ." In,the present action, this Petitioner was not afforded such an opportunity . Granted that this taxpayer availed himself of the full appeals process surrounding his 2002 liability, but he simply could not have been afforded any reasonable opportunity to challenge the assessment, without further corroboration or evidence of his losses . Without this kind of evidence, he could not have been afforded an effective opportunity to challenge the'deficiency based on all the merits of his case . A hearing on the Court's June 27, 2008 Order And Order To Show Cause was held in Washington, D .C ., on August 20, 2008 . Having filed the aforementioned August 18, 2008 Response To Order To Show Cause, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham chose not to attend in person . (So did petitioner .) In contrast, counsel for respondent did appear and argued in support of a finding that Attorney Jerry R . Abraham unreasonably and vexatiously multiplie d proceedings and, as a result, should pay personally excess costs , expenses , and attorney' s fees pursuant to section 6673(a)(2)(A) . Respondent's motions counsel also introduced a Declaration by respondent's field counsel John W . Stevens of Detroit, ' Michigan, --13 - detailing the .time spent (a total of 10 .0 hours) dealing with dkt . No .. 3332-08L . Counsel requested that respondent be compensated-at th.er to .of $150 per hour . Following the aforementioned hearing, the Court issued an Order dated August-25, 2008, directing Attorney Jerry R . Abraham to file a response to the .Declaration from; respondent'sfield counsel . Attorney Jerry R . Abraham complied with that order by filing a Response ._on September 10, 2008 . In his Response, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham argues that . . respondent's field counsel's "ten hour computation is .disproportionate and inaccurate ." Attorney Jerry R . Abraha m further argues that h e (i .e ., Attorney Jerry R . Abraham) 'pursue d an accepted administr ative strategy of audit reconsideration .. which appeared tofal 1 within the broad statutory mandate o f Internal Revenue Code ('IRC') Section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii)" an d that he acted neither vexatiously not in bad faith . Discussion . A . Resp .ondent'slMotio n The record iscl ear that respondent sent petitioner a notic e of deficiency for 200 2 and that petitioner received it i n sufficient time to fi le a petition for redetermination o f deficiency with this Court . Indeed, petitioner timely filed such a petition . Thus, .pe titioner had an opportunity to dispute his underlying tax liabil ity . The fact that petitioner squandered - 14 - that opportunity by failing to appear at trial and by consentin g to the dismissal of the case is irrelevant . In view of the foregoing, section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars petitioner from challenging the existence or amount of his underlying liability in the instant collection action . This Court so held in Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604 (2000), and has continued to so hold in an uninterrupted line of cases .10 In short, petitioner is statutorily barred from challenging the existence or amount of his underlying liability in the instant collection action . The recordis equally clear that petitioner did not, and has not,' offered a collection alternative . A collection alternative, which may include the posting of a bond, the substitution o f other assets, an installment payment agreement, or an offer-in- compromise, see sec . 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii), does not contemplate a challenge to the existence or amount of the underlying liabilit y in the guise of a "request for a re-open audit" . Petitioner' s assertion to that effect ("the general statutory directive of Section 6330 is to allow an aggrieved taxpayer to raise any an d 10 Insofar as sec . 6330(c)(2)(B) is concerned, we'are not aware of a single case from any other Federal court that is contrary to Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604 (2000), and its numerous progeny . Indeed, petitioner cites no case, from this or any other court, in support of his position regarding sec . 6330(c) (2) (B) . - 15 - all 'alternatives to collection' which are appropriate in any , given context") is nolthing but sophistry . Because petitioner raised no :issue,other than his underlying liability, .and becau's petitioner is statutorily barred -from raising that . issue, .tie .Court shall grant respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment . Se . 6330 (c) (2) (B) . Court's Order And Order To Show Caus e We must first decide whether Attorney Jerry R . Abraham is liable nder section 667 .3(a)(2) . for excessiv e costs . If we decid e hat Attorney Jerry R . Abraham is so liable, . then we must also de c (2 .) Counsel Whenever it appe or other perso n Court has multip unreasonably and require sLiability for Excessive Costs .- rsto the Tax Court that any attorne y dmitted to practice before . the Tax ied the proceedings i"n .any case vexatiously, the Tax Court ma y (A) th t such attorney or other' person personally he excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' ees reasonably incurred because such conduc * * * pay of - 16 - See ; Estate of Allison v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008-149, for the most recent case applying section 6673(a)(2)(A) as a sanction against an attorney for a taxpayer . See also Rule 33(b) .1 1 Attorney Jerry R . Abraham commenced, and has prosecuted, the instant collection action seeking only to challenge the existence or amount of petitioner's underlying liability, notwithstanding the clear statutory bar of section 6330(c)(2)(B) . Attorney Jerry R . Abraham has'done so notwithstanding his .knowledge tha t 11 Rule -33(b) deserves to be quoted ; thus," in relevan t part : (b) Effect of Signature : . The signature of counsel or a party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading ; that, to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law ; and that it is not interposed for any improper!~,purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation . The signature of counsel also constitutes a representation by counsel that counsel is authorized to represent the party or parties on whose behalf the pleading, is filed . * * * If a pleading is signed in violation of this Rule, the Court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, including reasonable counsel's fees . See Gillespie v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2007-202, affd . on other issues 102 AFTR 2d 6215, 2008-2 USTC par . 50,552 (7th Cit . 2008), for a case in which we justified sanctions against a taxpayers' attorney under both sec . 6673(a)(2)(A) and Rule 33(b) . - 17 - petitioner received t he April 25, 2005 notice of deficiency in sufficient time to fi le an. action for . .redetermination with . thi s Court, .as demonstrate~ d by the fact that he himself (i ..e ., Attorney Jerry R . Abr, aham) commenced and prosecuted the actio n for redetermination o f deficiency at dkt . No . 14170-05 . The fact that Attorney Jerry R Abraham agreed to the granting of . the Respondent''s Motion T oDismiss For .Lack Of Prosecution . (and never even filed a motion f or continuance) in no way avoids the fac t that Attorney Jerry R Abraham himself commenced and prosecuted the action for redetei rmination and was therefore fully aware of , that action . ' Further, Attorne y Jerry R . Abraham has cited no case from ,this or any . other Fed era'l court that would even remotely justify , given the . clear 'statu tory bar of section 6330'(c) (2) (B) , the commencement and prose ecution of the instant collection action that seeks only to ch! allenge the existence or amount of th e underlying liability . The argument by Attorney Jerry R . Abraham suggesting tha t petitioner "did not o therwise have an opportunity to dispute suc h tax liability" consti tutes a reckless disregard of . both fact an d well-established law' . The argument by Attorney . JerryR . Abraham that appears to, equate a challenge to the existence or amount . of the,- . underlying liability to a collection alternative is specious . In our view, - 18 - litigation that is commenced and prosecuted without regard to section 6330(c)(2)(B) is .frivolous, and we cannot imagine any purpose for such litigation other than to delay collection . See infra note 13 . The present case does not involve a lay person untutored in the law . Rather, it involves an attorney who is a member of th e bar of this Court .. Practicing as he does before this Court, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham should possess knowledge of section 6330, the statute that regulates pre-levy procedures, and specifically subsection (c)(2)(B) thereof .12 That statute has been part of the Internal Revenue Code since 1998 and has been the subject of numerous opinions of this Court . See Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub . L . 105-2 06, sec . 3401, 112 Stat . 685, 746 ; Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . : 604 (2000), and its progeny . In commencing the instant action, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham has disrespected the clear bar of section 6330(c)(2)(B), and h e 12 If Attorney Jerry R . Abraham wishes to impugn his level of competence, then suffice it to say that he was expressly educated as to the bar of sec . 6330(c)(2)(B) by respondent's Appeals settlement officer who, in the Attachment to the notice of determination, told him that "you are not able to raise the liability as an issue under CDP because you had a prior opportunity to do so ." (Attorney Jerry R . Abraham has :never contradicted the Appeals settlement officer's statement, .nor has Attorney Jerry R . Abraham ever contradicted the' Appeals settlement officer's further statement that "Your POA agreed", i .e! .,that Attorney Jerry R . Abraham agreed with the Appeals settlement officer's statement .) 19 has done . so without p rincipled justification .13 In so doing we find that he acted no t only recklessly but =in bad faith in commencing and prosec ting the instant case . See . Takaba v . Commissioner , 11 .9T . C 285, 296-297 (2002) . In sum,° Attorne y Jerry .R . Abraham has unreasonably an d vexatiously multiplie the proceedings and should therefore pay personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fee s reasonably incurred b~ respondent because-of his conduct . Sec . 6673 ;(a) (2) (A) . 2 . Amount bf Counsel's Liabilit y We turn now to t e amount' that Attorney, Jerry R . . Abraham should pay . This amount is'a'function of the time spent by+ re'spondent's counsel and the rate t which . counsel should be compensated . 13 See . Gillespi USTC par . 50,552 (7t petition executed by 6330(c) (2) (B) and ch underlying liability . sec . 6330 ( c)(2) (B) ar [how much the taxpay went on to state a s v . Commissioner , 102 AFTR 2d 6215, 2008- 2 Cir . 2008), a case in which the Tax Court the taxpayers'-attorney ignored sec . llenged the existence or amount of th e In its Order, the Court of Appeals cite d d stated that "The statute puts that subject rs owed] off limits" . The Court of Appeals ollows : The [taxpayers'] the petition was entitled to file while trying to effectively conc right to engage delay collection lawyer comes close to-conceding [that frivolous .] and argues that counsel is a petition in order to stall for time . negotiate a settlement . Tha t edes an abuse of process . There is no in frivolous litigation in order to - 20 - The record includes a Declaration by respondent's'field counsel in Detroit, Michigan detailing time spent by him in dealing with the instant case , a total of-10 hours . Other than 2 hours to review "requirements for filing a motion for summar y judgment", we find the time spent reasonable .19 In our view, 8 hours to review the petition and to file an answer, to draft a motion for summary judgment, to attempt (on more than one occasion) to contact Attorney Jerry R . Abraham to ascertain petitioner's position, to revise the motion, to review Attorney Jerry R . Abraham's response in opposition to the motion, t o review the Court's June 27, 2008 Order And Order To Show Cause , to coordinate with other members of Chief Counsel's Office . . regarding that, matter and provide them with documentation, and to prepare the Declaration is not "disproportionate and inaccurate" as alleged by Attorney Jerry R . Abraham .' 5 Finally, respondent's request that attorney time be compensated at the rate of $150 per hour is reasonable . Moreover, that rate is consistent with other cases . E . Gillespie v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2007-202, affd . on othe r 19 We emphasize that the Declaration represents time spent by respondent's field counsel in Detroit, Michigan . Not included is time spent by any of counsel's supervisors or by respondent's other counselli(or supervisors) in preparing for and attending the hearing in Washington, D .C . ; that time has not been separately listed in any other declaration filed with the Court . ' We note that Attorney Jerry R . Abraham has not: requested a hearing on this matter . - 21 - issues 102 AFTR 2d 62 5, 2008-2 USTC par . 50,552 (7th Cir . 2008) ; see also Takaba v . Co issioner, supra at 303-305 ; Matthews v . Commissioner , T .C . Me o . 1995-577, affd . without published opinion 106 F .3rd 386 (3d Cir . 1996) . Finally, Attorney Jerry R . Abraham has not suggested that any specific lesser rate is more appropriate . In sum, the "lodestar" amount, see Harper v . Commissioner , 99 T .C . 533, 549 .(1992), for respondent's counsel's time is $1,200 (8 hrs . x $150/ r .) . Conclusion We shall enter,an Order And Order And Decision : (1) Granting respondent's otion For Summary Judgment, filed May 27, 2008 ; (2) deciding tha respondent,may proceed with collection for the taxable year 2 02 as determined in the notice of determination dated January 18, 2008, upon which notice this case is based ;,(3) making .o r June 27, 2008 order to show cause absolute ; (4) and orde ing Attorney Jerry R . Abraham to pay personally $1,200 to t le United-States as a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a) (2) (A) . An order and order and decision consistent with the foregoing shall be entered .