TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Eric P. Mattson
Docket Number: 19245-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/13/2011
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ERIC P. MATTSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 19245-09. and Procedure, it is Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith the trial of to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Halpern at Los Angeles, California on Deciember 7, 2010, containing his oral conclusion of trial. findings of fact and opinion rendered at the above case before Judge James S. the pages of the the In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) James S. Halpern Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 13, 2011 4ERVED JAN 1 9 2011 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 James S. Halpern December 7, 2010 Eric P. Mattson v. Commissioner Docket No. 19245-09 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. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted to Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all rule references are to Tsg the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner resided in California at the time he filed the amended petition. Petitioner bears the burden of the proof. This case is before the Court pursuant to an amended petition filed under Section 6330(d) for review of a determination made by Respondent's Office of Appeals, herein after Appeals. By order dated November 29, 2010, we made absolute our order to show cause under Rule 91(f), dated October 26, 2010, and the facts and evidence set forth in the stipulation of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 iSigned) James S. Halpern 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 facts attached as Exhibit A to Respondent's motion for order to show cause under Rule 91(a), filed October 21, 2010, were deemed stipulated pursuant to Rule 91(f) (3) for purposes of this case. That stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference. By notice of determination concerning collection actions under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated July 9, 2009, hereafter the notice, appeals determined that it was appropriate to proceed by lien and by levy to collection Petitioner's 2001 and 2002 federal income tax liabilities. Petitioner assigns error to the notice on the grounds that, (1) Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with a face-to-face collection due process hearing that Petitioner could have audio recorded, and (2) Petitioner was not given the chance to challenge the existence of the underlying tax liability or collection alternatives. One attachment to the stipulation of facts shows that, for 2001, Respondent determined a deficiency in Petitioner's federal income tax of $7,384, and penalties of $852.30, $135,42, and $947 under Section 6651(a) (1), 6654(a), and 6651(a) (2), respectively. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I 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 A second attachment to the stipulation of facts shows that, for 2002, Respondent determined a deficiency in Petitioner's federal income tax of $8,474, and penalties of $908.78, $118.51, and $1,009.75, under Sections 6651(a) (1), 6654(a), and 6651(a) (2), respectively. At trial, we offered him the opportunity, but Petitioner failed to show that his underlying liabilities for those years was any less than determined by Respondent. Indeed, Petitioner refused to inform us why he disagreed with the Respondent's determinations, demanding that the case be remanded to appeals for the hearing he says he was wrongfully denied. In Lun sford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, ISN 189 (2001), we stated: "of course, there may be casesg Isa where taxpayers were not given a proper opportunity for an.appeals hearing, where it will be appropriate 350 for this Court to require that an appeals hearing be Tsu held." This is not one of those cases. It is not necessary, nor would it be productive, to remand this case to appeals to consider Petitioner's arguments that Respondent's determination of deficiencies is incorrect. We take Petitioner's refusal even to inform us of his arguments as evidence that Petitioner Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 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 has no valid arguments and is a tax protester bent on nothing but delaying the inevitable determination that he has unpaid tax liabilities for the years in issue. Petitioner further claims that he was denied a face-to-face hearing. An attachment to the notice states, and Petitioner does not deny, that appeals scheduled a face-to-face conference with Petitioner on - June 4, 2009, but that Petitioner did not appear for the conference. Nor did he provide the Collection Information Statement, Form 433-a, or his tax returns for 2004 through 2008 that appeals requested he submit. Petitioner was accorded the opportunity for a face-to-face hearing that he declined. He cannot complain that he was denied the opportunity to record a hearing that he declined to attend. Petitioner has failed to show that he presented appeals with any viable collection alternative or even provided the collection information that appeals would have needed to consider any alternative. There is no evidence whatsoever that appeals abused its discretion in détermining to proceed with collection of Petitioner's tax liabilities, as set forth in the notice, and we shall sustain the notice. 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 As relevant herein, Section 6673(a) (1) 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. We are convinced that Petitioner has no legitimate grounds for challenging the notice and has maintained these proceedings solely to.delay collection of tax. Petitioner's principal challenge to collection relates to hiÃ liability for any tax. We accorded him the opportunity to set forth his grounds, but he refused. Having to deal with this matter has wasted the Court's time, as well as Respondent's. We think that it is appropriate to penalize the Petitioner for instituting and maintaining this proceeding. We therefore shall impose on him a 6673(a) (1) penalty of $2,000. We shall enter an order and decision, one, ordering and deciding that Respondent may proceed with collection for 2001 and 2002, and two, ordering and deciding that Petitioner is liable for a penalty under Section 6673(a) (1) of $2,000. This concludes the Court's oral findings of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 | 1 2 3 4 s 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fact and opinion in this case. THE CLERK: All rise. (Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 8 // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1