TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert E. Farrell
Docket Number: 4509-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/14/2009
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON,D .C . 2021 7 ROBERT E . FARRELL , Petitioner, v . ) Docket No . 4509-08L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma , on April 28, . 2009 , containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . May 14, 2009 SERVED May 15 2009 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo Docket Number 4509-08L April 28, 2009 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 . 6 Section . references made in'this benc h opinion are to the-Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period . Rul e 9 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 10 Procedure . 11 This section 6330(d)(1) proceeding wa s 12 commenced as a Small Tax Case pursuant to th e 13 provisions of Section 7463 . By order dated April 16, 14 2009, Petitioner's election under Section 7463 was 15 discontinued . The case was tried and proceeds under 16 the authority of, and pursuant to Section 7443A(b)(4) 17 and Rules 180, 181, and 182 . 18 (cid:127) This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 19 authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 20 Robert E . Farrell appeared pro se . 21 Elizabeth Downs appeared on behalf of Respondent . 22 In a Notice of Determination Concerning 23 Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, 24 dated January 16, 2008 (the notice), Responden t 25 proposed to collect by levy Petitioner's outstanding Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 federal income tax liabilities for the years 2000 2 through 2003, inclusive . 3 The issue for decision is whether Petitioner 4 may challenge the existence or the amount of the above-referenced income tax liabilities in this proceeding . 7 All of the facts have been stipulated, and are so found . At the time the petition was filed , 9 Petitioner resided in Oklahoma . 10 Petitioner did not file a federal income ta x 11 return for any of the years-in issue . For each of 12- those years, Respondent issued and Petitione r 13 received,a notice of deficiency . Petitioner did not 14 petition the court for a redetermination of any of 15 those deficiencies, and the-deficiencies, togethe r 16 , with related amounts, were assessed in due course (the 17 underlying liabilities) . 18 In accordance with procedures contemplated 19 by Section 6330, Respondent, by letter, advise d 20 Petitioner'of Respondent's intent to levy in order to 21 colle.^t the underlying liabilities . And in response 22 to that'letter, in a Form 12153, request for a 23 collection due process or equivalent hearing (th e 24 form), Petitioner requested an administrative hearing . 25 On the- .form, Petitioner gave the following Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 f S 5 1 . "reason" for challenging Respondent's propose d 2 collection action : "Haven't filed returns and do not 3 owe this amount ." Elsewhere on the form, Petitioner 4 left blank the areas designated to raise a spousa l 5 defense. or propose a collection alternative . By letters dated November 28, 2007, an d 7 December 3, 2007, Respondent's appeals offic e 8 acknowledged receipt of the form and, in addition to 9 other things, in the-December letter a telephon e 10 hearing was scheduled . 11 As best as can be determined from the 12 record, Petitioner did not propose a collectio n 13 alternative to Respondent's proposed levy during the 14 telephone hearing . Because Petitioner failed timel y 15 to follow up on matters discussed during the telephone 16 hearing, Respondent's appeals officer caused the . . 17 notice to be issued . 18 In his timely petition filed in response to 19 the notice, Petitioner acknowledges that he "will have.. . 20 the liabilities but not- to the amount assessed . " 21 Accor ?ing to the petition, Petitioner's "completed and 22 (filed] tax returns will indicate a much lower tax 23 liability . " 24 As noted, all of the evidence presented in 25 this case has been entered by stipulation . Petitioner Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 6 1 appeared at trial, but he elected not to testify, and 2 he presented no argument in support of his position . 3 Actually, there is little he could have added . As of 4 the date of trial, the income tax returns lon g 5 promised had not yet materialized . Because he received a notice of deficienc y 7 for each of the years in issue, his--challenge to th e 8 existence and the amount of the underlying liabilities 9 is precluded by Section 6330(c)(2)(B) . Furthermore, 10 because he did not propose any collection alternatives 11 at the administrative hearing, he is precluded from 12 doing so in this proceeding . See Giamelli v . 13 Commissioner , 129 T .C . 107 (2007) . 14 The stipulated evidence establishes that the 15 obligations imposed upon Respondent under Section 6330 16 have otherwise been satisfied, and Petitioner nowhere 17 suggests otherwise . It follows that Respondent ma y 18 proceed with collection as determined in the notice . 19 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 20 entered for Responden t 21 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 22 fact and opinion in this case . 23 (Whereupon, at 9 :33 a .m ., the bench opinion 24 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888