TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Charles E. Fournier
Docket Number: 29179-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/18/2009
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COUR T WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 CHARLES E . FOURNIER, Petitione r v . ) Docket No . 29179-08L . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent 0 R D ;E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 hearing in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Boston, Massachusetts, on November 4, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent . A (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . November 18, 2009 SERVED NOV 2 4 2009 2 1 P R 0 C E E D I N G S 2 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke November 4, 200 9 4 Fournier v . Commissioner's Docket No . 29179-08 L 5 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 6 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case . An d 7 I the following represents the Court's oral findings of 8 fact and opinion . 9 The oral findings of fact and opinion shal l 10 not be relied upon as precedent in any other case . 11 This is a collection case in which th e 12 Respondent seeks to use a levy to collect Federa l 13 income taxes owed by the' Petitioner for 2002 , 2004 and 14 2005 . . The amounts owed approximate $113,000 . 15 The case is before the Court on Respondent's 16 motion for summary . judgment . 17 Petitioner has not disputed the liability 18 other than a general statement made by the Petitioner 19 at the hearing that he finds the Federal income ta x 20 system to be illegal . 21 The Petitioner';received a notice of 22 determination on October 31, 2008 and timel y 23 petitioned this Court . 24 In an effort to collect the unpaid balance s 25 for the years 2002, 2004,' 2005, Respondent issued to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202)1'; 628-4888 3 1 Petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice 2 of your right to a hearing in October 2007 . 3 The Petitioner submitted a timely request 4 for collection due process hearing and noted, in the 5 information he submitted, that he would like -- that 6 he would have liked to seek an installment agreement 7 in the course of the hearing process . 8 This began a process during which th e 9 Petitioner and his representative submitted financia l 10 information to the settlement officer assigned to the 11 case by the Respondent . 12 The settlementofficer, after considering 13 that information, determined that the Petitione r 14 should pay an amount of $1004 per month based upon 15 Petitioner's financial status . 16 The Petitioner's representative then 17 submitted some additional information concerning 18 increased automobile expenses to the settlement 19 officer and the settlement officer revised hi s 20 determination and found that Petitioner should pay 21 $815 a month . 22 In making this determination, the settlement 23 officer did not consider the equity that Petitione r 24 had in his home which was the joint residence of the 25 Petitioner and his current spouse . The current spouse Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 not being involved in the Federal income tax 2 liability . 3 The settlement officer then communicated his 4 willingness to accept an agreement based upon $815 to 5 the Petitioner's representative, who subsequentl y 6 advised the settlement officer that Petitioner would 7 not accept $815 as a monthly payment . 8 Subsequently, the settlement office r 9 determined that he had no recourse but to issue the 10 notice of determination which led to the current case . 11 At the hearing, which was held o n 12 Respondent's motion for summary judgment, the 13 Petitioner admitted that his current income wa s 14 actually greater than the amounts he had submitted to 15 the settlement officer in the course of th e 16 administrative hearing process . 17 At the hearing, the Petitioner did not 18 specifically challenge the settlement officer' s 19 determination, but rather simply said he needed to 20 save his money for potential home repairs or other 21 catastrophic expenses . 22 Summary judgment may be granted if th e 23 pleadings and other information made available to the 24 Court show that there is ;no genuine issue as to an y 25 material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 matter of law, Tax Court Rule 1210) . 2 The moving party bears the burden of proving 3 there is no genuine issue of material fact and factual 4 inferences will be read in a manner most favorable to 5 the non moving party . Dahlstrom, spelled D-A-H-L-S-T- 6 R-O-M, v . Commissioner, 85 TC 812 (1985) . 7 Abuse of discretion is the appropriat e 8 standard of review in cases such as the one before the 9 Court where the underlying liability is not at issue, 10 Sego, S-E-G-O, v . Commissioner, 114 TC 604 (2000) . 11 Because the underlying tax liability is not 12 at issue, the Court reviews the Office of Appeal s 13 administrative determination for abuse of discretion . 14 That is, whether the determinations wer e 15 arbitrary, capricious or without sound basis in law or 16 fact, Olsen v . United States, 414 F 2nd 114 (1s t 17 Circuit 2005) ; Goza v . Commissioner, G-O-Z-A, 114 TC 18 176 (2000) . 19 The Court does not substitute its judgment 20 for that of the settlement officer . 21 The administrative record in this case 22 completely discloses all ;the factors that th e 23 settlement officer considered in making hi s 24 determination and also confirms that he did not omit 25 any relevant factors required to make such a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 determination . 2 Attached to Respondent's motion for summar y 3 judgment was the declaration of the settlement officer is 4 which contained the pertinent information from th e administrative record as'exhibits . .Petitioner has offered the Court no basis to find that the settlementofficer abused his discretion and Petitioner offered no new evidence at the hearing . In any event, under the abuse of discretio n 10 standard of review, it is improper for the Court to 11 conclude that Respondent's appeals officer abused hi s 12 discretion under Section633013, of the Interna l 13 Revenue Code, in failing to grant relief or in failing 14 to consider arguments, issues or other matter no t 15 raised by the Petitioner or brought to the attention 16 of the settlement officer in the course of th e 17 administrative process, Giamelli v . Commissioner, 129 18 TC 107 (2001) . 19 Where Respondent makes a determination to 20 reject an installment agreement, there is no abuse of 21 discretion if that determination is consistent wit h 22 the guidelines provided in Respondent's Internal 23 Revenue Manual, Atchisonk'v . Commissioner, that's A-T- 24 C-H-I-S-O-N, TC memo 2009-8 . 25 The Court finds that, based upon the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202)i 628-4888 J 7 1 undisputed administrative record, the settlement 2 officer made a financiallanalysis of Petitioner's 3 income and expenses based upon the informatio n } 4 submitted by the Petition er and determined that the 5 Petitioner had the ability to pay $815 a month as a 6 partial payment to satisfy the tax liabilities . 7 At the time the determination was made, thi s I 8 amount was only $10 morekthan the amount proposed b y Petitioner's representative . 10 There is no issue of fact raised by th e 11 Petitioner that would challenge the settlemen t 12 officer's determination based upon documents that the .13 Petitioner submitted to his representative in th e 1,. 14 course of the administrative process or based upon any 15 , other information . 16 Accordingly, the Court will gran t 17 Respondent's motion for summary judgment and enter a 18 decision for Respondent . k 19 This conclude s the Court 's oral findings o f 20 fact and opinion in this case . 21 Let's go off the record . 22 (Whereupon, atI12 :41 p .m ., the bench opinion 23 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)l 628-4888