TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Armando E. Garza & Brenda Garza
Docket Number: 1310-16SL
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/05/2017
Pages: 5

JRN UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ARMANDO E. GARZA & BRENDA GARZA, Petitioners, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 1310-16SL COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER 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 petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Chief Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Houston, Texas, on September 21, 2017, 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 granting respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed June 21, 2017. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 5, 2017 SERVED Oct 06 2017 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 BENCH.OPINIÓN BY: CHIEF SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE LEWIS R. CARLUZZO SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 CASE NAME: ARMANDO E. GARZA AND BRENDA GARZA DOCKET NUMBER: 1310-16SL 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 12 . references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 . Procedure. 14 15 16 17 18 19 This section 6330(d) proce.eding is subject to the Small Tax Case provisions of section .7463 and Rules 170 through 175. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Éxcept as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority, and pursuant to section 20. 7463(b) the decision entered in this case shall not be 21 22 23 24 25 treat.ed as precedent for any other case. This .case is now before the Court on respondents' motion for summary judgment, filed June 21, 2017. A hearing was conducted on respondent's motion on September 20, 2017, in Houston, Texas. Susan Greene (43)406-2250|operations@eschers.netjwww.esaibersist 1 2 3 4 appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. Eugene P. Tausk appeared on behalf of petitioners and was heard. Giving due regard to the representations . 5 contäined in: (1) respondent's motion, and (2)- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 petitioners' response, filed September 13, 2017; and considering the presentations made by the parties at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case, and for the following reasons, that respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law. Consequently, disposition of this case upon respondent's motion is appropriate. See Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992)..aff'd, 17 F.3d. 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The undisputed facts relevant to the resolution of the respondent's motion are easily summarized. In a Not'ice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated December 28, 2015 (notice), respondent determined that a levy is an appropriate collection action with respect to petitioners' outstanding 2012 Federal income tax liability (underlying liability). The underlying liability was assessed in due course following the issuance of a notice of deficiency mailed to petitioner at their last known address on August 25, 2014. Petitioners do not dispute respondent's claim glimE (473)406.2250|operations@escribersmet|wwwescibersaet 5 that they received that notice of deficiency. By letter dated July 18, 2015, petitioners were advised that respondent intended to levy (proposed collection action) in order to collect the underlying liability. That letter also advised petitioners of their right to challenge that proposed collection action by requesting an administrative hearing, which they did. See sec. 6630(a) and (b). As it turned out, among the issues that could have been raised at the administrative hearing, See sec 6330(c)(2), the only issue petitioners raised at the administrative hearing amounts to a cha-llenge to the existence or the amount of the underlying liability. Similarly, the petition filed in this case - strike that - Similarly, the petition filed in this Court in response to the notice raises only issues relating to the existence or the amount of the underlying liability. Petitioners' dhallenge to the existence or the amount of the underlying liability continues in their September 13, 2017, response to respondent's motion. Under the circumstances, there is really very little for the Court to decide. Petitioners do not seek an alternative to the proposed collection action, and, as respondent motion òorrectly points out, petitioners are not entitled to challenge the under lying liability in this proceeding because they received a notice of 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 5E||1B 973)406-2250 h3pentionsgesabersmet] www.esaibersast 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 deficiency with respect to that liability. See sec. 6330 (c) (2) (B) . Otherwise, and in all other respects, respondent has shown that he has satisfied the procedural requirements imposed upon him by section 6330, and petitioners do not suggest otherwise. It follows that respondent's motion is well made and should be granted. In closing, we think it appropriate to note that the resolution of this matter says nothing about the 10 merits of petitioners' 'claim that the underlying liability is overstated. To that end, and as advised by respondent's counsel, petitioners ar.e free to pursue whatever remedies might be available to them independent of this proceeding in an attempt to give effect to their claim. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order and decision will be entered granting respondent's motion and allowing respondent to proceed with collection as determined in the notice. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case." (Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1 22 23 24 25 glass . 973)4óó-2250l optsat ns extibersÅet l wwwescibersmet