TAX COURT OPINION

Case: George Lee Amodeo
Docket Number: 29527-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/26/2010
Pages: 11

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 GEORGE LEE AMODEO , Petitioner , V . Docket No . 29527-08 L 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 to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Los Angeles, California, on January 28, 2010, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judg e Date : Washington, D .C . February 26, 2010 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa 2 GEORGE LEE AMODEO V . COMMISSIONE R 3 Docket Number 29527-08L 4 January 28, 201 0 5 BENCH OPINION 6 THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORA L 7 FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND TH E 8 FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT 9 AND OPINION . THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION 10 SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHE R 11 CASE . 12 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 13 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 14 All section references are to the Internal Revenu e 15 Code for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, which years 16 shall be referred to collectively as the years a t 17 issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court 18 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 19 This is a collection review case involving 20 the filing a of notice of Federal tax lien to collect 21 petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for the years at 22 issue . This collection review matter is before the 23 Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment , 24 filed on November 13, 2009 . Petitioner filed an 25 objection and the Court heard oral arguments on Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 January 25, 2010 in Los Angeles, California . 2 George Amodeo appeared pro se, and Jeffrey 3 Rice appeared on behalf of respondent . 4 FINDINGS OF FAC T 5 The record reflects or the parties do not 6 dispute the following facts . 7 Petitioner resided in California at the time 8 he filed the petition in this case . 9 Petitioner filed returns for each of the 10 five years at issue but was unable to pay the amount 11 owing . Petitioner had insufficient withholding and 12 estimated tax payments to pay his tax liability for 13 each of the years at issue . Respondent made 14 assessments based upon the amount reflected on th e 15 returns . Notice and demand of balances due were sent 16 to petitioner as required under section 6303, bu t 17 petitioner was unable to pay the assessed amounts, 18 which exceeded $100,000 . 19 Respondent therefore issued to petitioner 20 two letters, one dated May 6, 2008, relating to his 21 unpaid liability for 2000 and the second one dated 22 May 8, 2008, relating to the four other years a t 23 issue . These letters were entitled "Notice of Federal 24 Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing ." Thes e 25 notices shall be referred to as the "lien notice," Heritage Reporting Corporatio n .(202) 628-4888 5 1 Petitioner timely requested a collection 2 hearing with Appeals in response to the lien notice . 3 Petitioner referenced a previously filed lie n 4 regarding his liability for 1998 that is not at issue 5 in this case yet remains outstanding . Petitioner also 6 mentioned in the hearing request that he had paid part 7 of the taxes, that he had no property, that h e 8 believed the IRS already had a lien against him for 9 $50,000, that he believed he had an installmen t 10 agreement to pay $200 a month, and that the lien would 11 jeopardize his nuclear security clearance that would 12 lead to losing his job . 13 During the hearing, the settlement officer 14 explained that the pre-existing lien was for 1998, 15 which year is not before the Court, but becaus e 16 petitioner had failed to pay the entire liability for 17 1998, all years thereafter require filing a lien , 18 which is what occurred for the years at issue . 19 Petitioner did not provide any required financia l 20 information for the settlement officer to consider any 21 collection alternatives . 22 After the hearing, on November 5, 2008, the 23 settlement officer sent petitioner a Notice o f 24 Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under 25 Section 6320 and/or 6330 (determination notice) Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 informing petitioner that the settlement office r 2 sustained the filing of the Federal tax lien regarding 3 all five years at issue . The settlement office r 4 addressed all the issues that petitioner raised in his 5 hearing request and at the hearing . 6 Petitioner filed a timely petition t o 7 contest the determinations in the determination notice 8 sustaining the lien filing . Petitioner raises th e 9 same issues in his petition and in his objection to 10 respondent's summary judgment motion as he raised in 11 this hearing request . Namely, petitioner asserts that 12 the settlement officer in Fresno, California wh o 13 handled his hearing interfered with the good faith 14 negotiations petitioner had with an IRS employee in 15 New York who handled large case delinquencies . This 16 interference resulted in a loss of revenue that was 17 further made worse when the lien filing cause d 18 petitioner to lose work and lengthened the time it 19 took petitioner to be re-employed . Petitioner had 20 apparently been filing financial statements with the 21 New York employee and stopped making payments on the 22 installment agreement regarding the 1998 liability in 23 2007 when he lost his job . Petitioner promptl y 24 notified the New York employee upon his re-employment . 25 Petitioner essentially argues that respondent's right Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 hand does not know what its left hand is doing . At no 2 time did petitioner challenge the existence or amount 3 of the unpaid liabilities as they result from 4 self-assessed amounts . 5 As mentioned previously, respondent filed a 6 summary judgment motion, petitioner objected and the 7 Court held a hearing on the motion . 8 OPINION 9 We are asked to decide whether to grant 10 summary judgment . Summary judgment is intended to 11 expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary an d 12 expensive trials . See, e .g ., FPL Group, Inc . v . 13 Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for 14 summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, 15 answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, 16 and other acceptable materials, together with the 17 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuin e 18 issue as to any material fact and that a decision may 19 be rendered as a matter of law . See Rule 121(b) ; 20 Elect . Arts, Inc . v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 21 (2002) . The moving party has the burden of provin g 22 that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that 23 it is entitled to judgment as a matter . of law . See, 24 e .g ., Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 16 2 25 (2002) . We conclude that no material fact is in Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 dispute and that respondent is entitled to judgment as 2 a matter of law . 3 We turn now to the standard of review . 4 Where, as is the case here, the validity of th e 5 underlying tax liabilities is not properly placed at 6 issue, the Court will review respondent' s 7 determination for abuse of discretion . Sego v . 8 9 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 (2000) . We must 10 decide whether respondent exercised his discretion 11 arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in 12 fact or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 13 19, 23 (1999) . 14 We briefly give an overview of lie n 15 proceedings . Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of 16 the United States on all property and rights t o 17 property of a taxpayer when demand for payment of that 18 person's liability for taxes has been made and th e 19 person fails to pay those taxes . The lien arises when 20 the assessment is made and continues until the ta x 21 liability is satisfied or the statute of limitations 22 bars enforcement of the lien . Sec . 6322 ; Iannone v . 23 Commissioner , 122 T .C . 287, 293 (2004) . If th e 24 taxpayer fails to pay, the Commissioner files the lien 25 with the appropriate State office to validate the lien Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 against others . See sec . 6323(a) ; Lindsay V . 2 Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2001-285 . 3 Section 6320 provides that the Secretary 4 shall furnish the taxpayer described in section 632 1 5 with written notice that a lien was filed . The person 6 may then request administrative review of the matte r 7 in the form of an Appeals office hearing . The hearing 8 generally shall be conducted in a manner consisten t 9 with the procedures for levies . Sec . 6320(c) . 10 If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or 11 she may raise at that hearing any relevant issue s 12 relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed collection 13 action . Sec . 6330(c)(2) . Relevant issues include any 14 appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to th e 15 appropriateness of collection, and possibl e 16 alternative means of collection-such as an installment 17 agreement or an offer-in-compromise . Sec . 18 6330(c)(2)(A) . After the hearing, the Appeals officer 19 is required to make a determination that addresse s 20 issues the taxpayer raised, verifies that al l 21 requirements of applicable law and administrative 22 procedures have been met, and balances the need for 23 the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate 24 concern of the person that any collection action be no 25 more intrusive than necessary . Sec . 6330(c)(3)(C) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 10 1 We are satisfied that the settlement office r 2 properly verified that legal and procedura l 3 requirements have been met . He confirmed, using a 4 transcript of petitioner's accounts, that assessments 5 were properly made for each of the five years a t 6 issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sent 7 regarding the assessments, and that petitioner wa s 8 properly informed of his rights with respect to th e 9 lien . The settlement officer also addressed the other 10 issues petitioner raised in his hearing request . if 11 petitioner had some arrangement with the New Yor k 12 office, it was in his best interests to provide that 13 information to the settlement officer . Petitioner 14 cannot turn a blind eye to the settlement officer's 15 request to provide financial information to th e 16 hearing officer . We have frequently and consistently 17 held that an officer does not abuse any discretion to 18 refuse to consider collection alternatives if th e 19 taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested 20 financial information . Sapp v . Commissioner , T .C . 21 Memo . 2006-104 ; Newstat v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 22 2004-208 . We similarly must deny petitioner's request 23 to remove the tax lien entirely from his recor d 24 because it negatively reflects against his nuclea r 25 security clearance . We generally have no authority to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 i 11 1 grant relief to a taxpayer's claim that filing the 2 lien adversely affects that taxpayer's rating . 3 Gerakios v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-203 . The 4 settlement officer also determined that the filing of S the tax lien balanced the need for the efficien t 6 collection of taxes with petitioner's legitimate 7 concerns that any collection action be no mor e 8 intrusive than necessary . 9 Petitioner has not asserted any spousal 10 defenses, or otherwise offered any additiona l 11 collection alternatives . See sec . 6330(c)(2) . 12 Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded . 13 Rule 331(b)(4) . 14 Thus, having reviewed the entire record, we 15 conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion 16 in determining that the filing of the lien here was 17 appropriate regarding petitioner's unpaid tax 18 liabilities for each of the five years at issue . 19 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 20 entered for respondent and an appropriate order will 21 be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in 22 the Notice of Determination Concerning Collectio n 23 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated 24 November 5, 2008, upon which this case is based , 25 regarding the unpaid liabilities for the taxable years Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 12 1 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 . The order will also 2 grant respondent's motion for summary judgment . 3 Hopefully, petitioner will now work wit h 4 respondent in making acceptable arrangements to pay 5 the outstanding tax liabilities at issue . 6 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 7 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 8 (Whereupon, at 8 :55 a .m ., the bench opinion 9 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888