TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Nancy Robertson
Docket Number: 10204-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/16/2010
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 NANCY ROBERTSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 10204-09L. Pursuant to Rule ~152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmi.t herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at of Tampa, Florida, on October 28, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at ttie 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. December 16, 2010 SEMED DEC 2 2 2010 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 Nancy Robertson v. Commissioner Docket No. 10204-09L Thursday, October 28, 2010 -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 Bench Opinion is rendered pursuant to Tax Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 152 and Internal Revenue Code 7459(b,) hereinafter Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This case is before the Court based upon Petitioner's timely Petition to Respondent's determination that Respondent's collection action pursuant to levy is appropriate after Petitioner had a hearing with a Settlement Officer in accord with Internal Revenue Code Section 6320 and 6330. The present status of the case is that Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment and the Petitioner/Respondent have filed a Stipulation of Facts. The motion for summary judgment was scheduled 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 for hearing at the trial session of the Court in Tampa, Florida, which began on October 25th, 2010, at which time the Court would determine whether to proceed with the motion for summary judgment or proceed with trial. Petitioner failed to appear on October 25th, 2010, and also failed to appear when the case was reset on October 28th, 2010, after she had been contacted and informed that the case has been reset. The Court will address the merits of Respondent's motion for summary judgment in this Bench Opinion. Under Rule 121 Summary Judgment is appropriate if there is no dispute of a factual nature which requires trial. In this case the parties pleadings and the Stipulation of Facts submitted by the parties provides a sufficient factual basis for the Court's determination. The Court notes that summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of judicial economy in a case such as this where there is no underlying dispute as to the facts of the case. In the present case the collection action sought by the Respondent is to sustain the Federal Tax Lien which was filed regarding 2000 and 2001 income tax liabilities. Petitioner failed to file income tax 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 5 returns for either of the years in question. Respondent utilized the procedures under Section 602Ø(b) to prepare-substitute for returns for Petitioner for both years, and Respondent issued a Notice of Deficiency to the Petitioner for each year in February 2006. At the time of filing of the Petition in this case the Petitioner was a resident of Florida. Petitioner has not asserted any dispute as to the underlying tax liability of the Notices of Deficiency issued in 2006, and assessments were made with respect to those tax liabilities in July of 2006 when Petitioner did not file timely Petition in the Tax Court. The law is well settled that a petitioner having received a Notice of.Deficiency in not filing a Petition in Tax Court may not challenge the underlying tax liabilities in a subsequent case brought under Section 6320 or 6330. Given that limitation of our jurisdiction, in reviewing Respondent's determination in the present case we are left to determine whether Petitioner proposed collection alternatives or any other legitimate issue which could be raised under Section 6320 or 6330 that was not properly considered by the Appeals Officer. 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 The Appeals Officer notes that Petitioner was offered a telephone conference in March of 2009, and was requested to complete a collection information statement with proof of income and expenses for purposes of considering collection alternatives. Petitioner did not provide the requested information. . The Settlement Officer subsequently sent another letter to the Petitioner allowing 14 additional days to submit the requested information. Petitioner let this deadline pass as well without submitting the information. Because Petitioner failed to produce the underlying information the Settlement Officer then reviewed the case to determine if all legal and procedural requirements had been met and balanced the competing interest of Respondent's need to collect the underlying taxes with the intrusiveness on Petitioner and determined that the collection action should be sustained. Petitioner's Petition to this Court indicates that she simply did not have time to provide the underlying information to the Settlement Officer, although there's no evidence that she requested additional time from the Settlement Officer. She also indicated in her Petition that she was trying to 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 7 retrieve the necessary information. Based upon the Stipulation of Facts and the record before the Court at this time, it appears Petitioner has not provided any additional information or any basis for collection alternatives. In the present case where we do not review the underlying tax liability our analysis of Respondent's determination is based upon7 an abuse of discretion standard. Sego v. Commissioner 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). • The di-scret-i.en of whether the Respondent has abused his discretion is a question of fact but the standard of review is very narrow. Estate of Gardner v. Commissioner 82 T.C. 989, 1000 (1984). There is certainly no evidence for us to find any abuse of discretion by Respondent's Settlement Officer, given Petitioner's failure to supply any collection alternative information or to offer any suggested alternatives to the underlying tax lien in question. While we sympathize with Petitioner's difficult financial situation, her failure to cooperate with the Settlement Officer and pursue collection alternatives subsequent to the filing of the Petition in this case by providing information to Respondent's personnel in hopes of compromising the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 case after Petition before the Court, demonstrate that there is no alternative but to sustain Respondent's determination that the collection action was appropriate and in accord with the provisions of Section 6220 and 6330. S A decision will be entered for Respondent in accord with Respondent's motion for summary judgment and the motion for summary judgment will be granted. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupony -at 4:11 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // / // // // // // // // // // 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 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62834888 |