TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Daniel Edward Crumpler
Docket Number: 13707-20L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/21/2024
Pages: 6

United States Tax Court Washington, DC 20217 DANIEL EDWARD CRUMPLER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13707-20L. 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Chief Special Trial Judge Carluzzo at Atlanta, Georgia, on February 8, 2024, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order and Decision will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge Served 03/21/24 Bench Opinion by Chief Spcl. Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo 3 February 8, 2024 Daniel Edward Crumpler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 13707-20L 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 (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 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Procedure. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. This section 6330(d) case is before the Court on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment filed December 2023 (motion). Findings of Fact A hearing was conducted on the motion in Atlanta, Georgia on February 6th, 2024. Erin A. Schaffer- Williams appeared on behalf of Respondent and argued in support of the motion. There was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioner. At the time the petition was filed, the Petitioner lived in Georgia. Having no response from 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 Petitioner to Respondent's motion and because the 4 Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing, we proceed as though the facts relied upon by Respondent in support of the motion are not in dispute and those facts are summarized below. In a Notice of Determination concerning collection actions under section 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code dated October 27, 2020 (Notice), Respondent determined that the filing of a Federal Notice of Tax Lien (NFTL) is an appropriate collection action with respect to Petitioner's outstanding Federal income tax liabilities for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The 2012 liability results from income tax assessments made in part on the basis of the amount of income tax liability reported on Petitioner's 2012 Federal income tax return and in part from an assessment of a deficiency made later. The liabilities for the other years result from assessments made in due course with respect to tax liabilities reported on Petitioner's Federal income tax returns for those years (underlying liabilities). By letter dated June 13, 2019, Respondent notified Petitioner that the NFTL had been filed as a collection action with respect to the underlying liabilities. That letter further advised Petitioner of his right to request and administrative hearing to challenge that collection 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 action, which he did. In his request for the 5 administrative hearing, Petitioner noted that he could not pay the underlying liabilities because of his poor health and limited income. Petitioner did not challenge the underlying liabilities in his request for the administrative hearing. He did not challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liabilities during the administrative hearing. And he does not challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liabilities in this proceeding. At all times, starting from his request for the administrative hearing through the commencement and processing of this case, Petitioner has consistently maintained that he is unable to pay the underlying liabilities because of his current health and financial situations. During the administrative hearing, Respondent's Settlement officer properly considered Petitioner's position to be a request for a collection alternative, specifically that the underlying liabilities be considered "currently not collectible". That being so, Respondent Settlement officer requested numerous times that Petitioner submit financial information that would allow the Settlement officer to consider whether Petitioner qualified for that collection alternative. Even though the Settlement officer made repeated requests for the information and allowed Petitioner sufficient time 6 to provide it, Petitioner never did. In cases such as this one, if the taxpayer does not challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liability, as is the situation here, then we review Respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. See Goza v. Commissioner 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). In so doing, the Court considers whether the collection determination under review was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. See E.G. (sic) Murphy v. Commissioner 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005). We have consistently held that a Settlement officer's determination to proceed with a proposed collection action rather than accept a taxpayer's collection alternative is not an abuse of discretion if the taxpayer fails to respond to the Settlement officer's request for financial information. See Warren v. Commissioner 123 T.C. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (2004). 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That is what happened here. Because a Settlement officer was never provided the financial information requested from Petitioner during the administrative hearing, after multiple requests for the information were made and after allowing Petitioner sufficient time to provide the information, the determination made in the Notice cannot be challenged as an abuse of discretion. 7 In all other respects, Respondent's motion shows that the Settlement officer proceeded as required by section 6320 and 6330, and Petitioner has not suggested, much less established otherwise. From our review of the submissions of both parties with respect to the motion here under consideration, as well as documents otherwise filed in this case, we are satisfied that there are no issues of material fact in dispute and that Respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law. See Rule 121. Respondent's motion is well made and will be granted. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. And that concludes the Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 10:39 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 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