TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Sharriff Malik Dyer
Docket Number: 10870-12L
Judge: Laro
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/25/2013
Pages: 10

ALS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SHARRIFF MALIK DYER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 10870-12 L. ) ) ) ) ) OR D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, 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 Judge David Laro at Detroit, Michigan, containing his Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion, rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion, we will issue an Order denying petitioner's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice and we will also issue an Order and Decision granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, sustaining Appeals' determinations, and allow respondent to proceed with the collection action upon which this case is based. Dated: Washington, D.C. June 25, 2013 (Signed) David Laro Judge SERVED Jun 25 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge David Laro May 20, 2013 3 Sharriff Malik Dyer v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 Docket No. 10870-12L THE COURT: The Court has decided to render an Oral Opinion in this case, and the following is the Court's oral opinion. This bench opinion is made under the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 10 Presently before the Court is petitioner's 11 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice 12 13 14 15 16 17 (motion to dismiss) filed May 14, 2013, on the eve of trial. Respondent filed a timely response dated May 17, 2013. For reasons stated in respondent's response, the Court will deny petitioner's motion to dismiss. Also before the Court is respondent's 18 motion for summary judgment under Rule 121 filed 19.- February 8, 2013. The Court ordered petitioner to 20 21 respond to the motion, but he failed to do so. The record reveals there is no genuine dispute of 22 material fact, and the Court may render a decision as 23 24 25 a matter of law. We will do so here. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code and rule 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner refers to Sharriff Dyer, IRS refers to the Internal Revenue Service, and Appeals refers to the IRS Office of Appeals. Petitioner resided in Michigan when he filed the petition. Background Petitioner has appeared before this Court; he was a party in a deficiency case, docketed at 25736-10 and filed November 22, 2010, in which he petitioned the Court for a redetermination of deficiencies that respondent had determined for years 2004 through 2007. We held a trial in that case on 13 October 27, 2011, issued a memorandum opinion on 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 August 6, 2012, and entered our decision on November 5, 2012, after the parties submitted their agreed computation under Rule 155. Our decision shows that petitioner had an aggregate deficiency of about $23,000 for years 2004 through 2006 and about $27,000 of additions to tax and penalties for the same period. While his deficiency case was pending before the Court, respondent assessed his tax liabilities for years 2004 through 2006 based solely on petitioner's self-assessed Federal income tax returns that he had submitted for these years . On 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 December 22, 2011, respondent issued to petitioner a Letter 3127, Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 (CDP notice) for years 2001 through 2007 and 2009. Around January 10, 2012, petitioner sent to respondent a signed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (CDP request) and attached to the CDP request a letter disputing the tax liabilities for years 2004 through 2006 that underlay the CDP notice. Petitioner also requested a lien withdrawal on the premise that the underlying tax liabilities were in dispute. Prior to petitioner's CDP hearing, respondent's Appeals requested certain supporting documents from petitioner for the purposes of considering any collection alternatives. Petitioner never provided any such documents. Respondent's Appeals held a CDP hearing and subsequently issued a Notice of Determination on 19 April 4, 2012. The Notice of Determination stated 20 21 22 23 24 25 that petitioner was precluded from raising the underlying liabilities and that he failed to provide the requested information necessary for Appeals to consider any collection alternative. As a result, Appeals determined that it could not grant any relief under section 6320. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Petitioner filed the instant petition, raising only one issue--that is, he was never given a prior opportunity under section 6330(c) (2) (B) and 6330 (c) (4) to dispute the underlying liabilities. Discussion Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in controversy where the record establishes "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 10 that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. " 11 Rule 121 (a) and (b) . As the moving party, respondent 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to petitioner as the nonmoving party. Where a motion for summary judgment is made, an adverse party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. " Rule 121 (d) . Here, respondent supported the motion with the pleadings and various exhibits. Despite the Court's order, petitioner did not respond to respondent's motion. Based on the record, this case is ripe for summary judgment. We review the Commissioner's determinations in a CDP hearing generally for abuse of discretion; except that if the validity of a taxpayer's 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 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 underlying liability is properly at issue., we review the matter de novo. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111 (2007). As a threshold matter, we note that petitioner's CDP notice was properly issued. This is so because the Commissioner may assess and collect a taxpayer's tax liability that the taxpayer reported on his own return for any year even though the taxpayer has filed a petition with the Court for a redetermination of a tax deficiency that the Commissioner has determined for the same year. Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 555, 560-561 (1991). Under section 6213(a), if a taxpayer files with the Court a petition for a redetermination of a deficiency determined in a notice of deficiency, the Commissioner is not permitted to assess or to collect the proposed deficiency until the Court's decision in the deficiency case becomes final. However, the Commissioner may still assess and collect any self- assessed tax liability of the taxpayer that is not part of the proposed deficiency. Id. As is the case here, petitioner's petition for a redetermination under section 6213(a) for years 2004 through 2006 did not bar respondent from collecting the tax liabilities that petitioner reported on his returns 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 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 for those years. Next, we must determine whether petitioner could properly dispute the tax liabilities underlying his CDP notice in his CDP proceeding. We conclude that he could not. Under 6330 (c) (2) (B), a taxpayer may not challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability in his CDP proceeding if the taxpayer received a statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or otherwise had an opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Petitioner received a statutory notice of deficiency in August 2010, covering years 2004 through 2007. The notice of deficiency was the basis of petitioner's petition in the deficiency case. Thus, petitioner may not challenge the underlying liabilities for those years, whether the liability was self-assessed or assessed as a deficiency, in his CDP proceeding. Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 8 (2004). We also find that petitioner had a prior opportunity to dispute his self-assessed tax liabilities for 2004 through 2006 when he filed the petition in his deficiency case. As a general rule, once a taxpayer files a petition with this Court for 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 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 a redetermination of deficiency, our jurisdi.ction is all-encompassing, covering the entire subject matter of the taxpayer's correct tax for the period involved. See Erickson v. United States, 309 F.2d 760, 767 (Ct. Cl. 1962). Thus, if petitioner wished to dispute the self-assessed tax liabilities for years 2004 through 2006, he had an opportunity to do so in his deficiency case. That being the case, he could not raise this issue in his subsequent CDP proceeding. Moreover, collateral estoppel would preclude petitioner from challenging his tax liabilities for 2004, 2005, and 2006 in the instant case. Collateral estoppel applies where the following conditions are met: (1) the issue in the subsequent litigation is identical to that resolved in the earlier litigation; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated and decided in the prior action; (3) the issue must have been necessary and essential to a judgment on the merits in the prior litigation; and (4) the party to be estopped was a party to the prior litigation. Hickman v. Commissioner, 183 F.3d 535, 537 (6th Cir. 1999). In a deficiency proceeding, the Court is asked to decide a taxpayer's correct tax for the year in dispute. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Here, petitioner fully litigated his deficiency case for two years. After due deliberation, we issued a memorandum opinion and decided his correct tax for 2004, 2005, and 2006, which encompassed both the deficiencies and petitioner's self-assessed portion of the tax liabilities. Thus, petitioner may not relitigate his tax liabilities for these years in the instant case. Because the underlying liabilities is the only issue raised in the instant petition, we deem petitioner to have conceded all other issues. In any event, the record shows that Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it declined to consider any collection alternatives when petitioner failed to submit any documents that Appeals had requested. We also note that Appeals has complied with the requirements under section 6330 (c) (3). In reaching our decision today, we have considered all arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not discussed herein, we find them to be irrelevant, moot, or without merit. Accordingly, we 22 will issue an Order denying petitioner's Motion for 23 Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. We will also 24 issue an Order and Decision granting respondent's 25 motion for summary judgment, sustaining Appeals' 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 11 1 determinations, and allowing respondent to proceed 2 with the collection action that is the subject of this proceeding. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the above entitled matter was concluded.) 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