TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert Eugene McCaslin, Jr. & Katie Olivia McCaslin
Docket Number: 24438-10L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/11/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 ROBERT EUGENE McCASLIN, JR. & KATIE OLIVIA McCASLIN, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Docket No. 24438-10L Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa at Houston, Texas on May 23, 2012, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the conclusion of trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order of dismissal will be entered granting respondent's motion to dismiss on ground of mootness. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. June 11, 2012 SERVED JUN 1 2 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.Diane L. Kroupa McCaslin v. Commissioner Docket Number 24438-10L May 23, 2012 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. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2007, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This collection review case is before us on respondent's motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness concerning a collection action for 2007. The Court scheduled respondent's motion for a hearing in Houston, Texas. Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing nor did they file a Rule 50(c) statement. Dave Mora appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION The record reflects or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioners resided in 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 Texas when they filed the petition. Petitioners late filed their return, had insufficient withholdings, and failed to make estimated tax payments on the $2,780,842 amount petitioner husband received as 1099 income from the U.S. Department of Justice in 2007. Respondent sent petitioners a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing advising petitioners that respondent sought to collect petitioners' unpaid taxes for 2007 and informing petitioners that they could receive a CDP hearing. Petitioners timely filed a request for a hearing with Appeals in response to the lien notice. Petitioners did not challenge the underlying liability. They challenged the tax lien and requested that it be withdrawn so they could sell some property to pay the tax liabilities. At the hearing, petitioners, through their representative, asked that the lien be withdrawn and wanted to discuss a collection alternative. Petitioners failed to provide any financial information, however, to the Settlement Officer on Form 433. The Settlement Officer agreed to give petitioners an additional 14 days to submit the financial statement and supporting documentation. Petitioners failed to provide the requested financial 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 information. Thus, respondent issued petitioners a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 sustaining the lien notice to collect the unpaid tax liability for 2007. Petitioners timely filed a petition with this Court. After filing the petition, respondent agreed to release the Federal tax lien on certain of petitioners' property to allow them to sell the property and apply the proceeds to the outstanding tax liability. Petitioners sold some property and made a $257,000 payment to respondent.. Respondent thereafter agreed to waive the additions t;o tax for late filing and failing to pay as to 2007. Petitioners' payment and respondent's waiver of the pdditions satisfied all petitioners' outstanding tax liabilities for 2007. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and our jurisdiction in collection review cases is defined by the scope of the determination that the Appeals officer is required to make. See sec. 7442; Freiie v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 25 (2005). Ordinarily, once the Commissioner concedes that there is no unpaid liability for a disputed year upon which a collection action could be based, a collection review proceeding filed in this 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 6 Court is moot. Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 7 (2006). For our purposes, a case filed pursuant to section 6330 is moot if the Federal income tax liability that the Commissioner is attempting to collect has been paid in full so that no collection action is appropriate. Id. Here, petitioners have paid their tax liabilities in full for 2007 that are subject to the Determination Notice upon which this case is based. As a result, respondent no longer needs or intends to collect any unpaid tax liability for 2007 and there is no remaining case or.controversy to sustain this Court's jurisdiction;. To reflect·the foregoing, an order will be entered granting respondent's motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness,;and this case is dismissed on the ground of mootness. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 8:59 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888