TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Randy A. Belmont
Docket Number: 20536-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/09/2010
Pages: 12

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 RANDY A. BELMONT, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 20536-09L Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is O R D E R ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit tlie to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Diane L. Kroupa at Cleveland, Ohio, on June 22, 2010, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion. the pages of the proceedings of the above case beforA Judge In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. ) (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, D.C. July 9, 2010 SERVED JUL 1 3 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE DIANE L . KROUPA JUNE 22, 2010 BELMONT V. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 20536-09L 4 The Court has decided to render o al findings of fact and opinion in this case and the fo lowing 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 bench opinion is made pursua t to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Reve ue Code as amended for 0 and 2 the years at iss e, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . This is a collection review case i volving the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien to collect petitioner's unpaid liabilities for each of the years at issue. This collection review matter is efore the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, f iled on , 2010 . Mr. Belmont appeared pro se, and K te Kosar appeared on behalf of respondent . FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following: Petitioner resided i Ohio at Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 5 the time he filed the collection review petition in this case. Petitioner failed to file a Federal income tax return for either of the years at issue. Respondent prepared substitute returns for etitioner based on information from third-party payors. Respondent issued petitioner a de iciency notice for both years at issue. Petitioner failed to file petitions for a redetermination with this Court within the statutory period. Respondent as essed the amounts reflected in the deficiency notices for each of the years at issue. Petitioner failed to pay the assessed amounts and respondent thereafter gave petitioner notice that respondent was proposing to collect the unpaid amounts through levy in 2008. Respondent also issued petitioner a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing. " (This notice shall be referred-to as the "Lien Notice.") Petitio er timely filed hearing requests in response to both n tices. Petitioner's requests for a hearing raised ohly frivolous arguments. The Cleveland Appeals ffice acknowledged receiving petitioner's hearing equest for both the proposed levy and the Lien Notice and scheduled a telephone conference with petiti ner. Respondent informed petitioner that he would be allowed Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 6 a face-to-face hearing on any nonfrivolous issues and that he would need to provide the nonfrivolous issues in writing within the 14 days. Moreover, respondent also informed petitioner that he needed to s ile delinquent tax returns for three years, 2006, 2007, and 2008 and make estimated tax payments for 2009. Petitioner also needed to provide his then current financial situation and complete Form 433-A Collection Information Statement . Respondent warned petitioner that his arguments had been considered friv lous by this Court and other courts and he was at r' sk of having a $25, 000 penalty imposed against hi . Petitioner responded by letter demanding a ace-to-face hearing. Petitioner failed to call in for the scheduled conference call and did not provide the Appeals Office with the requested information. Respondent gave petitioner an additional 14 days to provide financial information and proof of filing obligations. Petitioner was told that if petitioner failed to provide the information, a determihation would be made based on the information alrea y on file. Without any additional information from petitioner, the Settlement Officer sustained the lien and levy collection actions in two Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 7 Section 6320 and/or 6330 on July 30, 2009, regarding both of the years at issue. Petitioner timely filed a petition to contest only the lien action to collect petitioner's unpaid tax liability for both f the years at issue. As stated previously, respondent iled a summary judgment motion and petitioner time y filed an objection. Petitioner states in his object on that respondent prejudiced him by denying him the right to a face-to-face hearing. He asks that this ca e be remanded to Appeals for a face-to-face hearing. He is contrite, says he has recanted his previous y held beliefs and steadfastly urges respondent to comply with its own laws and procedures. OPINION We are asked to decide in this col ection review matter 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. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depos tions, admissions, and other acceptable materials, ogether with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and th t a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 decision may be rendered as a matter of la . See Rule 121(b); Elect. Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. pr vi238 (2002) .ge n epartma e ithe urd nxis s 8 and that it is entitled to judgment as a ma ter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 .C. 157, 162 (2002). The party opposing summary jud ment must set forth specific facts that show that a g nuine question of material fact exists and may no rely merely on allegations or denials in the ple dings. Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 17 (1986). We begin with the standard of review. Where the validity of the underlying tax liabilit is properly at issue, the Court will review th matter on a de novo basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where, as is the case here, th 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, supra; Goza v. Commissioner, 1 4 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). We must first decide w ether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Based upon our examination of the entire record before Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 9 us, we find that the respondent did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the lien action wi h respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for each of the years at issue. We now discuss general collection proceedings. Section 6321 imposes a lien i favor of the United States on all property and right to property of a taxpayer when demand for paym nt of that person's liability for taxes has been made nd the person fails to pay those taxes. The lien arises when the assessment is made. Sec. 6322. Section 6320 provides that the Se retary shall furnish the taxpayer described in sec ion 6321 with written notice that a lien was filed. The person may then request an administrative review h aring to be conducted in a manner consistent with the p ocedures set forth in sections 6330(c), (d), and (e). Section 6320(c). If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or she may raise at that hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax. Section 6330(c) (2). Relevant issues include any appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collect on, and possible alternative means of collection such as an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise. Section. 6330(c) (2) (A). After the hearing, the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 10 Settlement Officer is required to make a de ermination that addresses issues the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, and balances the need for the efficient collection of ta es with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection * action be no more intrusive than necessary. Section 6330(c) (3) (C). Petitioner alleges that the settlement officer violated the law by refusing to con uct a face- to-face hearing. We disagree. The law is ell settled that the Commissioner is not required to pr vide a face-to-face meeting. Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 336 (2000); section 301.6330-1(d), Proced. and Admin. Regs; Turner v. Commissioner, T.C. M mo 2010-44. That is, while taxpayers are generally entitled to a face-to-face hearing, the law does not invariably require a face-to-face meeting, and the Commissioner may conduct the hearing by telephone or correspondence. Katz v. Commissioner, supra. It is equally s well settled that a CDP hearing may consist of on or more. written or oral communications between an Ap eals officer and the taxpayer. Section 301.6320-1(d) (2), Q and A-D6, Proced, and Admin. Regs.; see Katz v. Commissioner, supra; Dinino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 11 2009-284. All communications between the taxpayer and the Appeals officer between the time of th hearing request and the issuance of the determination notice constitute part of the CDP hearing. See Mi dleton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-120; see also Dinino v. Commissioner, supra. Here, the Settlement Officer exch nged written correspondence with petitioner. Th Settlement Officer gave petitioner ample opportunity to raise relevant issues. The Settlement Officer ex lained that petitioner needed to provide the necessary inancial information and needed to be current on his filing and payment requirements. Moreover, the record reflects that the Settlement Officer properly verified that all the legal and procedural requirements have een met. The Settlement Officer confirmed, using a t anscript of petitioner's accounts, that assessments wer properly made for each of the years at issue, that a propriate and timely notices were sent regarding the ssessments, and that petitioner was properly informed o his rights with respect to the lien action. The record also reflects that petitioner requested that collection alternatives be c sidered but never presented any financial informati for respondent to evaluate any alternatives. Respondent's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 12 procedures provide that a settlement officer should not consider collection alternatives from taxpayers who have failed to file the required returns or have not made ertain required deposits of tax. The procedures further provide that no face-to-face confer nce will be granted to a taxpayer who wishes to make a ollection alternative but has not fulfilled those obligations. Section 301.6320-1(d) (2). Q and A-D8, Proc d. and Admin. Regs. Petitioner never provided any financial information and never showed his compliance with the filing requirements. Petitioner also had a history of noncompliance with the tax law and was not in compliance with his current tax obligations. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111-112 (2007). We have frequently and consistently held that an officer does not abuse any discretion by ref sing to consider collection alternatives if the taxp yer fails to submit the required and requested financi 1 information. Sapp v. Commissioner, T.C. Mem . 2006- 104. Finally, the record reflects that the Settlement Officer properly balanced the nee for efficient collection of taxes with petitione 's legitimate concern that any collection actio be no more intrusive than necessary. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 13 Petitioner has not. asserted any spousal defenses, or otherwise offered any additio al collection alternatives. See section 6330(c) (2). Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b) (4). Petitioner claims he sees the err r of his ways and he no longer wishes to assert tax >rotester arguments. We appreciate petitioner's peni ence. This fails, however, to undo or remedy his past transgressions. Petitioner has only to look to himself for his predicament. He has been a persiste t nonfiler since 1998. He did not provide the delinquent returns despite numerous requests to do so. He did not provide the necessary financial information, he did not demonstrate compliance with estimated tax payments, nor did he supply some form of security other than the lien. We therefore conclude that the Appeals Office did not abuse any discretion in upholding respondent's lien actions to collection from petitioner o tstanding tax liabilities for both of the years at iss e. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent and an appropriate or er will be issued sustaining the determinations set for h in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collectio Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 upon which th s case is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 14 based, regarding the unpaid liabilities fo 2004 and 2005. The order will also grant responden 's motion for summary judgment. This concludes the Court's oral f ndings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 2:19 p.m., the benth opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded. // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888