TAX COURT OPINION

Case: John Robert Baldwin
Docket Number: 9762-10L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/01/2011
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CLC JOHN ROBERT BALDWIN, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 9762-10 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. O R 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of February 11, 2011, containing her oral opinion rendered in this case. the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa on transmit the to the pages of findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 1, 2011 SERVEDMar022011 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 Diane L. Kroupa February 11, 2011 Baldwin v. Commissioner Docket No. 9762-10L 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. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted in section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the years at issue as later defined, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case involving a proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for the taxable years 1997, 2005 and 2006 (collectively the years at issue). This collection review matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on December 23, 2010. There was no appearance by or on be on behalf petitioner. Frank Louis appeared on behalf of respondent. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT 4 The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in Connecticut at the time the petition was filed. Petitioner failed to file timely a Federal income tax return for each of the three years at issue. Respondent prepared substitute for returns for petitioner based upon information from third party payors. Respondent issued a statutory deficiency notice for each of the three years at issue based upon the substitute for return. Petitioner failed to file a petition to contest the deficiencies so respondent there after assessed the tax liabilities. Petitioner failed to pay any of the unpaid tax assessments. Respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice-Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing advising petitioner that respondent intended to collect the unpaid taxes for 1997, 2005 and 2006, and informing petitioner that he could receive a hearing. Petitioner timely filed a request for a hearing with Appeals in response to the levy notice. The hearing request covered each of the years at issue. Petitioner had also requested a hearing with respect to 2007 but no levy notice had been sent for 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 that year. Petitioner admits that the assessments were based upon the Service's estimation of taxes due and that he has failed to prepare returns for any of the years at issue. He is confident that once he prepares the return for each of the years at issue that he will owe very little or be entitled to a refund. Respondent has not received any return from petitioner despite his claim that he had paid all or a substantial part of the outstanding tax liability. As set forth in the Determination Notice, petitioner failed to participate in a scheduled telephone conference. Petitioner also failed to provide the requested financial information and failed to file the delinquent returns. Without receiving the requested information and documents from petitioner, respondent issued the Determination Notice upholding the proposed levy action to collect his liabilities for 1997, 2005 and 2006. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court. Petitioner continues to argue that he has paid all or a substantial part of the liabilities. To date, petitioner still has failed to submit a return for any of the three years at issue. As mentioned previously, respondent filed a summary judgment motion. The Court ordered petitioner 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 to file on or before January 31, 2011, a response or objection to respondent's summary judgment motion. Petitioner failed to file a response or an objection. The Court also scheduled the motion for a hearing in Hartford, Connecticut, on February 7, 2011. Petitioner failed to attend. He called the Court to say that he decided, after talking to respondent's counsel, that the hearing would be a waste of time. OPINION We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedited litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive retts. See, e.g., FPL Group Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable materials show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b); Electric Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). The moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 162 (2002) The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts that show that a genuine 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 question of material fact exists and my not rely merely on allegations or denials in the pleadings. Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 216-217 (1986). Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). We must decide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, any T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that the collection action should proceed with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for each of the years at issue. Petitioner may not merely deny he has paid all or substantially all of the taxes due. Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We briefly provide an overview of collection proceedings. If any person liable for Federal tax liability neglects or refuses or make payment within 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 8 ten days of notice and demand, the Commissioner is authorized to collect the tax by levy on that person's property. See sec. 6331(a). At least 30 days before enforcing collection by levy on the person's property, the Secretary is obliged to provide the person with a final notice of intent to levy, including notice of the administrative appeals available to the person. See sec. 6331(d). The person is entitled, upon request, to an administrative review hearing before Appeals. Sec. 6330(b) (1). If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or she may raise at that hearing any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy. Sec. 6330(c) (2). Relevant issues include any appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collections, and possible alternative means of collections such as an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise. Sec. 6330(c) (2) (A). After the hearing, the Appeals officer is required to make a determination that addresses issues the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than 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 9 necessARY. Sec. 6330(c) (30). The record establishes that the Settlement Officer properly verified that all the legal and procedural requirements have been met. The Settlement Officer confirmed, using a transcript of petitioner's accounts, that assessments were properly made for each year at issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sent regarding the assessments, and that petitioner was properly informed of his rights with respect to the proposed levy action.. The record also reflects that the Settlement Officer properly balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary. Petitioner has not raised any valid challenge to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousal defenses, or otherwise offer any collection alternatives. See sec. 6330(c) (2). Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b) (4). Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that respondent abused his discretion. We therefore conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding respondent's proposed collection action regarding 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 10 petitioner's oubstanding tax liabilities for each year at issue. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under Section G3-9. and/or 6330, dated March 25, 2010, upon which this case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilities for 1997, 2005 and 2006. The order will also grant respondent's motion for summary j udgment . THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT' S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . (Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888