TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Arosh & Frosene Kouhi
Docket Number: 6003-12SL
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/05/2013
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SEC AROSH & FROSENE KOUHI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 6003-12SL. ) ) ) ) ORDE 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 petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at San Francisco, California, 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 order and decision granting respondent's motion for summary judgment and a decision for respondent will be entered. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 5, 2013 SERVEDMar072013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke January 31, 2013 Arosh & Frosene Kouhi Docket No. 6003-12S 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. The oral Findings of Fact and Opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code, in effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463 (b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court. The citations hereinafter are from the Internal Revenue Court and RuleØ, citations are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This Opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and pursuant to Rule 152 (b), a transcript of this proceeding will be served upon the parties as the 22 Opinion of the Court. 23 24 25 FINDINGS The Petitioners timely filed a petition in this case and at the time they filed the petition 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 they were residents of California. In their petition they sought review of Respondent's Notice of Determination which sustained collection action relative to income tax liabilities for the years 2006 and 2007. The collection action involved a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, which was filed, and upon which a notice of such filing was sent to the Petitioners, and they timely sought a review by Respondent's Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer communicated with 12 Petitioner's representative and set a deadline of 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 January 18th, 2012 for the submission of information seeking an offer and compromise. The Petitioners' primary position with the Settlement Officer and in this Court is that a carry- back of a loss related to rental real properties from 2008 would alleviate the liabilities which are before the Court for 2006 and 2007. There is a procedural impediment to the 21 Court's consideration of this carry-back claim, 22 23 24 25 however. The case begins with the Petitioners' failure to pay income tax liabilities reflected on their income tax returns for 2006 and 2007. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 They previously filed a claim for tentative refund from the year 2008 on December 13th, 2010. The Philadelphia Service Center denied this claim in January of 2011. The determination was made that the claim was not timely. The Petitioner subsequently appealed that determination and they were provided a hearing with an Appeals Officer in September of 2011. The Appeals Officer, after that communication with the Petitioners and consideration of Petitioners' claim for a tentative carry-back from 2008 to 2006, and 2007 determined that the position of the Philadelphia Service Center was correct and that there was no basis to allow the refund. On January 6th, 2011, Respondent issued a 16 Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and notified the 17 Petitioners of their right to a hearing pursuant to 18 19 20 section 6330. The Petitioners timely sought a hearing and a hearing was held with a different Settlement 21 Officer of the Internal Revenue Service than the 22 23 24 25 officer who had considered the claim for refund from 2008 based upon the carry-back loss from 2008, to 2006 and 2007. In addition to consideration of the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 6 Capital Reporting Company 1 2 Officer assigned to consider Respondent's lien filing 1 circumstances of the tentative refund, the Settlement 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 also advised Petitioners that if they sought an alternative to the collection of the tax, they needed to submit financial information to her. That information was not forthcoming. And based upon her analysis that the original determination concerning the claim in 2008 was correct and that the Petitioners had not submitted sufficient information for the consideration of collection alternatives, a Notice of 12 Determination was made to sustain the Federal Income 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Tax lien, which had been filed for 2006 and 2007. OPINION As a legal matter, this Court has previously determined that when the parties have had access to present their underlying tax liabilities to Respondent's Office of Appeals, the underlying liabilities are barred from consideration in a 20 Collection Due Process case pursuant to section 21 22 23 24 25 6330 (c) (2) (b). In Lewis v. Commissioner, 128TC 48 (2007), the Court made a determination that an appeals conference was sufficient to meet the requirement of an opportunity to dispute. And based upon that 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 analysis, we are left with no recourse but to sustain Respondent's Notice of Lien Filing in the present case because Petitioners failed to submit the required information to seek a collection alternative and we cannot consider their claim that the carry- back from 2008 would reduce their liabilities for 2006 and 2007. Given that legal analysis and the 9 Petitioners' failure to present information that 10 would give Respondent the opportunity to consider a collection alternative, a decision will be entered for Respondent in this case. This concludes the Court's oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. THE CLERK: All.rise. (Whereupon, at 10:33 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com