TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James M. Rexroad
Docket Number: 7004-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/08/2009
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 JAMES M . REXROAD, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 7004-08L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R 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 hearing of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at San Diego, California on May 6, 2009, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the hearing on respondent's motion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . June 8, 2009 SERVED Jun 09 2009 W, 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa May 6, 2009 2 James M . Rexroad v . Commissioner Docket No . 7004-08L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to rende r 4 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 5 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 6 fact and opinion . These oral findings of fact and 7 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 8 other case . 9 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 10 authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 11 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 12 Code for 2002 and 2003, the years at issue, and al l 13 Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice 14 and Procedure . 15 This is a collection review case involving 16 whether Respondent abused his discretion in deciding 17 that the proposed levy action should not proceed to 18 collect Petitioner's unpaid tax liability for each of 19 the years at issue . . This collection review matter is 20 before the Court on Respondent's motion for summary 21 judgment filed on February 13th, 2009 . Petitione r 22 filed a response that seeks a refund of $4,623 . 23 Petitioner appeared pro se, and Jeffrey Schlei 24 appeared on behalf of Respondent . 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes the following : 3 Petitioner resided in California at the time he 4 filed the petition in this collection revie w 5 proceeding . 6 Petitioner's 17-year-old son died unexpectedly 7 in December 2002 of a brain tumor . Petitioner wa s 8 depressed and did not file a tax return for 2002 or 9 2003 . Respondent conducted an examination and 10 determined deficiencies of federal income tax for each 11 of the years at issue . Petitioner did not file a 12 petition to contest the deficiencies . Respondent 13 thereafter assessed the amount of deficiencies plus 14 penalties and interest . 15 Respondent sent Petitioner a Final Notice - 16 Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a 17 Hearing (the Notice) on May 26, 2007 . The Notic e 18 advised Petitioner that Respondent intended to levy to .19 collect the unpaid liabilities for the years at issue 20 and that Petitioner was entitled to a hearing wit h 21 Respondent's Office of Appeals . Petitioner timely 22 requested a hearing for the years at issue . 23 Petitioner only raised .fr.ivolous issues,in his 24 hearing request and did not contest the underlyin g 25 liabilities . The settlement officer assigned to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Petitioner's hearing held a telephone conference with 2 Petitioner and reviewed financial information i n 3 January 2008 . During the conference, the settlement 4 officer suggested a collection alternative of placin g Petitioner's unpaid tax accounts in "currently not collectible" status . Thereafter, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Determination Concernin g Collection Actions under Section 6320 and/or 6330 with respect to Petitioner's income tax liabilities for 6 7 9 10 2002 and 2003 . The proposed levy action was no t 11 upheld in the Determination Notice and the collection 12 division was instructed to first temporarily suspend 13 collection and place Petitioner in currently not 14 collectible status and, second, not to file a notice 15 of federal tax lien . 16 Petitioner filed a timely petition with the 17 Court . Petitioner does not take issue with th e 18 collection review process in this proceeding except, 19 in response to Petitioner's motion for summar y 20 judgment, Petitioner seeks a refund . 21 OPINION 22 Before we decide the appropriateness of 23 granting Respondent's summary judgment motion, w e 24 first decide whether we have jurisdiction to determine 25 whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of taxes in Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 at 6 5 1 this collection review proceeding : We do not . We 2 have previously held in a Court-reviewed case that 3 this Court lacks jurisdiction in collection revie w 4 proceedings to determine an overpayment or to order a 5 refund or credit of taxes . Green-Thapedi v . ,6 Commissioner , 126 T .C . 1 (2006)' . 7 We now decide whether it is appropriate t o 8 grant summary judgment . Summary judgment is intended 9 to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary an d 10 expensive trials . See, e .g ., FPL Group, Inc . v . 11 Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for 12 summary judgment will be granted if the .pleadings, 13 answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, 14 and other acceptable materials, together with the 15 affidavits, if any, show that there .is no genuine 16 issue of material fact and that a decision may b e 17 rendered as a matter of law . See Rule 121(b) ;. Elect . 18 Arts, Inc . v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 (2002) . 19 We are satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to 20 any material fact and that a decision may be rendered 21 as a matter of law, and we shall grant Respondent's 22 motion for summary judgment . 23 Now the .standard of review . Where the validity 24 of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, 25 the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 Sego V . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000 ) . Wher e 2 the validity of the underlying tax liability is not 3 properly placed at issue , as here, the Court wil l 4 review Respondent's determination for abuse o f 5 discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , supra ; Gaza v . 6 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 (2000) . We must 7 decide whether Respondent exercised his discretio n 8 arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in 9 fact or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 10 19, 23 (1999) . 11 Petitioner has not raised any challenges to the 12 appropriateness of collection, did not assert an y .13 spousal defenses, or otherwise offer any collection 14 alternatives . See Sec . 6330(c)(2) . Accordingly , 15 these issues are now deemed conceded . Rule 331(b)(4) . 16 Moreover, Petitioner has not, presented any 17 evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that 18 Respondent abused his discretion . We, therefore , 19 conclude that . Respondent did not abuse his discretion 20 in refusing to uphold the proposed levy action . Nor 21 did Respondent abuse . his discretion in instructing the 22 collection division to temporarily suspend collection 23 and to place Petitioner in currently not collectible 24 status and in deciding not to file a notice of federal 25 tax lien . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 To reflect the foregoing, we shall grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in the Notice o f 5 Determination Concerning Collection Actions Unde r 6 Section 6320 and /or 6330, dated February 8th, 2008, 7 upon which this case is based, regarding the year s 8 2002 and 2003 . 9 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 10 . fact and opinion in this case . 11 (Whereupon, at 11 :40 a .m°, the bench opinion in 12 (cid:127) the above-entitled case was concluded . ) 13 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 2 1 22 23 // 24 // 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888