TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert G. Finkbeiner
Docket Number: 6122-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/15/2010
Pages: 6

C . A,1J. 8/._&\ O P - u (-1 °i UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D.C. 20217 ROBERT G . FINKBEINER, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 6122-09L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Detroit, Michigan, on March 24, 2010, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and .opinion, decision will be entered for petitioner except with respect to taxable year 2004 . . (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judge Date : Washington, D .C . April 15, 2010 SERVED APR 19 ZO19 F 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa 2 March 24, 201 0 3 Robert G . Finkbeiner 6122-09 L 4 5 The,court has decided to render oral findings of 6 fact and opinion in this case and the followin g 7 represents the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion . 8 These oral findings of Fact and Opinion shall not b e 9 relied upon as precedent in any other case . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 11 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . All 12 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and 13 all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules o f 14 Practice and Procedure . 15 This is a collection review case involving the 16 filing of a notice of Federal tax lien as well as a 17 proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid liabilities 18 for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004 . This collection review 19 matter is before the Court on petitioner's Motion fo r 20 Summary Judgment, filed March 12, 2010 . Respondent filed 21 a response to petitioner's motion on March 22, 2010, when 22 a hearing was held on petitioner's motion for summar y 23 judgment in Detroit, Michigan . 24 Petitioner appeared pro se . Mindy Chou and Gary 25 Begun appeared on behalf of respondent . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N 2 The record establishes or the parties do not 3 dispute the following : 4 Petitioner resided in Michigan at the time he filed 5 the collection review petition in this case . 6 Petitioner is a clergyman since 1968 . Petitioner 7 was a clergyman at Good Hope Lutheran Church for 2000 and 8 at Immanuel Lutheran Church for 2001, 2002 and 2004 . 9 Petitioner failed to file a return for any of the years 10 at issue so respondent prepared a return for petitioner 11 based on the income reported by Good Hope Lutheran Church 12 and Immanuel Lutheran Church . Apparently, petitione r 13 sought to be exempt from social security taxes by being a 14 clergyman but not exempt from Federal income tax . Th e 15 record reflects that petitioner stopped filing ta x 16 returns in 1999 . Respondent sought a deficiency for each 17 of the four years at issue and issued a statutor y 18 deficiency notice to petitioner but petitioner failed to 19 file a petition timely . Respondent thereafter assessed 20 the tax liabilities for the years at issue . 21 Respondent issued to petitioner a letter entitled 22 'Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of 23 Your Right to a Hearing,' dated July 14, 2008 for the 24 outstanding tax liabilities for each of the years a t 25 issue, which notice shall be referred to as the Levy Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 Notice . Respondent also mailed a letter to petitioner 2 entitled 'Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and You r 3 Rights to a Hearing' for the outstanding liabilities for 4 each of the years at issue (referred to as the Lie n 5 Notice) . Petitioner requested a hearing in response to 6 the Lien Notice and the Levy Notice . Petitioner sough t 7 to contest the underlying tax liabilities at issue . 8 also demanded a face-to-face hearing that he could tape 9 record . The Court has since learned that he sought t o 10 tape record the hearing because of a hearing problem . 11 In his hearing request, petitioner made the same 12 arguments other taxpayers have made in collection review 13 cases where we have previously and consistently found 14 such arguments to be misplaced . De Haas V . Commissioner , 15 T .C . Memo . 2009-25 ; Klootwyk v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 16 2008-214 . Specifically, he stated that 'I am requesting 17 a face-to-face collection due process hearing in a n 18 Appeals office closest to my place of residence, which I 19 will be audio recording . There are a few issues I wish 20 to address' at the hearing that include (but are no t 21 limited to) a dispute over the underlying tax liability, 22 a challenge to the appropriateness of the levy action, an 23 inquiry into whether the IRS met the requirements of any 24 applicable laws and administrative procedures, and an 25 offer of valid collection alternatives .' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 The Settlement Officer assigned to petitioner's 2 hearing informed petitioner that he would be allowed a 3 face-to-face conference only with respect to an y 4 nonfrivolous issue . They were unable to agree t o 5 providing the information in writing . nor did petitioner 6 complete a Form 433-A, entitled 'Collection Information 7 Statement' so that they could consider collectio n 8 alternatives . The Settlement Officer also explained tha t petitioner needed to file delinquent tax returns for th e 10 years after the years at issue . The letter also informed 11 petitioner that, if he failed to provide the necessary 12 information, the Settlement Officer would be unable to 13 consider any collection alternatives and would issue a 14 determination notice based on the information i n 15 respondent's administrative file . 16 Without any additional information from petitioner, 17 the Settlement Officer sustained the lien action and the 18 proposed collection action by levy in a Notice o f 19 Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under 20 Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 9, 2009 . As 21 previously stated, petitioner filed a summary judgment 22 motion and respondent filed an objection . Respondent 23 concedes the challenge to the collection actions for 24 taxable years 2000, 2001 and 2002 . At the hearing , 25 petitioner concedes the collection actions for taxable Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 year 2004 . 2 To reflect the foregoing, we shall gran t 3 petitioner's motion for summary judgment as to year s 4 2000, 2001 and 2002 . With respect to 2004, we shall deny 5 petitioner's motion for summary judgment and shal l sustain the collection actions set forth in the Notice of 7 Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Unde r 8 Section 6320 and /or 6330, dated February 9, 2009, upon 9 which this case is based , regarding the unpai d 10 liabilities for 2004 only . The order will also ente r 11 decision for petitioner as to 2000 , 2001 and 2002 but for 12 respondent as to 2004 . 13 This concludes the Court ' s Oral Findings of Fact 14 and opinion in this case . 15 (Whereupon , at 9 :35 a .m ., the bench opinion in the 16 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 17 //. 18 // 19 // 20 // 2 1 22 // 23 // 24 / ./ 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888