TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Martin Anthony Avila
Docket Number: 9904-13L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/29/2014
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 MARTIN ANTHONY AVILA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 9904-13L ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on May 1, 2014, it is 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 trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Los Angeles, California, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order and Decision will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 29, 2014 SERVED MAY 29 2014 Capital Reporting Company 1 2 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo May 1, 2014 3 Martin Anthony Avila v. Commissioner 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Docket No. 9904-13 L 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 (bench opinion). Section references contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6330(d) case has been assigned in accordance with section 7443A(b)(4) and Rule 182. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Except as provided in Rule 152(c) this bench opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent. This case is before the Court on respondent's (1) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (2) Motion to Permit Levy, and (3) Motion to Impose a Penalty under I . R. C. Section 6673, all filed November 19, 2013. Petitioner's objections to respondent's motion are embodied in his responses, all filed December 13, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com ,5 Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2013. A hearing was conducted on respondent's 2 motions on April 28, 2014, in Los Angeles, 3 California. Halvor R. Melom appeared on behalf of 4 respondent and argued in support of the motions. 5 Martin Anthony Avila appeared on his own behalf and 6 7 8 opposed them; he lived in California at the time the petition in this case was filed. This case was timely commenced in response to a 9 Notice of Determination Concerning Collection 10 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated 11 April 3, 2013 (notice), a copy of which is attached 12 13 14 15 to the petition. In the notice respondent determined that a notice of levy is an appropriate collection action with respect to petitioner's outstanding 2008 Federal income tax liability (underlying liability). 16 Nothing in the petition can be construed as an 17 18 19 20 assignment of error or allegation of fact in support of any error made in the notice. Instead, paragraphs A through W, inclusive, in the attachment referenced in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition are nothing 21 more than a litany of frivolous and groundless 22 23 24 25 assertions. "A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment based solely on the allegations and information contained in the pleadings and not on any outside matters." 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523, 537 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (2000). The moving party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings if the party shows that the pleadings do not raise a genuine issue of material fact and that the party is entitled to decision as a matter of law. Id. That is the situation here. We have carefully reviewed the pleadings in this case. Under the circumstances, we see no need to burden this bench opinion with a discussion that addresses each of petitioner's misguided allegations or out-of-context legal citations. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked there is "no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so 15 might suggest that these arguments have some 16 17 18 19 20 21 colorable merit". Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011). Giving petitioner not only the benefit of every doubt, as we are required to do at this stage of the proceeding, see Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th 22 Cir. 1995), but wide pleading latitude as a self- 23 24 25 represented litigant, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), we conclude that the petition in this case fails to raise any justiciable issue and that 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 the pleadings establish that respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law. That being so, respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted. Because petitioner has not properly placed the underlying liability in dispute, and because the circumstances show that there is good reason not to suspend the proposed levy, respondent's Motion to Permit Levy will be granted. See sec. 6330(e)(1)&(2). Finally, we address respondent's motion for the imposition of a section 6673(a) penalty. That section authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000, whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless. The manner in which petitioner has proceeded in this case has exposed him to the imposition of a section 6673(a) penalty. The statement in the notice advising him of the positions he advanced at the administrative hearing could result in the imposition of a section 6673(a) penalty did not deter him from the frivolous positions taken in this proceeding. He was given a second warning by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 the Court during the hearing on respondent's motions. 2 Hopefully, he will quit while he is ahead. While we 3 will not impose the penalty in this proceeding, we 7 are likely do so should petitioner take similar positions in other case before this Court. To reflect the foregoing an appropriate order and decision will be entered. This concludes the bench opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:41 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com