TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Michael P. Healy & Jacqueline A. Healy
Docket Number: 9575-13L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/24/2014
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 MICHAEL & JACQUELINE HEALY, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 9575-13L ORD E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in San Francisco, California on March 20, 2014, containing her 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 will be issued granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC April 24, 2014 SERVED APR 2 4 2014 .Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa 2 March 20, 2014 3 Michael P. Healy & 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Jacqueline A. Healy Docket No. 9575-13L 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 by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Code in effect for 2008 and 2009 (the years at issue), 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 from Petitioners their unpaid tax liabilities for the years at issue. This collection review matter is before the Court on Respondent's motion for summary judgment. The Court ordered Petitioners to file a response or objection to Respondent's motion and scheduled Respondent's 24 motion for a hearing on the Court's March 17th, 2014, 25 San Francisco, California, trial session. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 Petitioners did not file a timely response or an objection to Respondent's motion, despite having been ordered to do so by the Court, nor did 4 Petitioners appear for the hearing scheduled in San 5 6 7 8 9 Francisco on Respondent's motion. Christopher Groboske appeared on behalf of Respondent. Findings of fact, the record establishes the following facts: Petitioners resided in 10 Cathedral City, California, at the time they filed 11 the collection review petition. Respondent examined 12 Petitioners' records for each of the^years at 490 issue DL 13 and determined that there was a $17,814 deficiency in 14 Petitioners' liability for the years at issue. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Petitioners failed to pay the assessed amount, so Respondent placed a lien on Petitioners' property and proposed a levy to collect the unpaid tax liabilities for the years at issue. Petitioners timely filed a hearing request. Petitioners sought, in requesting the hearing, that Respondent accept an installment agreement and handle it as he did for 2007. They also stated on their hearing request form that they could not pay the outstanding amount. 25 Petitioners, through their representative, and an 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 appeals employee had a series of telephone conferences regarding this collection proceeding. The appeals employee offered an installment agreement of paying $125 a month until paid in full. Petitioners' representative stated that he needed to get approval from his clients. The appeals employee also requested that 8 Petitioners provide their current financial 9 information. Petitioners provided none of the 10 11 12 13 14 requested financial information, nor was any response to the installment arrangement forthcoming. As mentioned previously, Respondent filed a summary judgment motion and the Court scheduled a hearing on Respondent's motion at the San Francisco, 15 California, trial session beginning March 17th, 2014. 16 Petitioners did not file a response or an objection 17 18 to Respondent's motion, as the Court ordered, nor did the Petitioners appear at the scheduled hearing on 19 Respondent's motion. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Opinion, we are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g., FPL Group Inc. v. Co.mmissioner, 116 TC 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary judgment will be 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 granted if the pleadings and other acceptable 2 materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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). 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 TC 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 TC 176, 181-182 (2000). We therefore must decide whether Respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 TC 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 20 Petitioners' unpaid liabilities for 2008 and 2009. 21 22 23 24 Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We issue this bench opinion to explain how we reached our decision, rather than merely stamping 25 Respondent's motion granted. We now briefly explain 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 how we reached our decision. First, the record reflects that Petitioners never presented any financial information for the settlement officer to evaluate any collection alternatives. We have frequently and consistently held that an officer does not abuse any discretion by refusing to consider collection alternatives if the taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested financial information. Sapp v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-104. In addition, a settlement officer is not obligated to negotiate indefinitely or wait any specific time before 1ssulng a determination. See 14 Kreit Mechanics Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 137 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TC 123, 134 (2011); Kuretski v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2012-262. Petitioners have not raised any challenges 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). Petitioners have not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that Respondent abused his discretion. We therefore 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 conclude that Respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding Respondent's proposed levy action. 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 actions under Sections 6320 and/or 6330 upon which this case is based, regarding Petitioners' unpaid income tax liabilities for 2008 and 2009. The order 10 will also grant Respondent' s motion for summary judgment. This concludes the Court's oral findings of facts and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:46 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