TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James Robert Wheeler, Jr. & Holly L. Wheeler
Docket Number: 24286-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/17/2008
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT .WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 JAMES ROBERT WHEELER, JR . AND HOLLY L . WHEELER , Petitioners, v . Docket No . 24286-07 S 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 petitioners 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 Cheyenne, Wyoming, on September,15, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . -In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Lewis R . Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . October 17, 2.008 SERVED OCT 1: 7 2008 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo James Robert Wheeler, Jr . & Holly L . Wheele r Docket Number 24286-07S September°15 , 2008 6 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 7 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and 8 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 9 fact and opinion . 10 Unless otherwise noted, section references 11 contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal 12 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the 13 relevant period . Rule references are to the Tax Court 14 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 15 This section 6330(d) proceeding was 16 conducted as a Small Tax Case pursuant to th e .17 provisions of section .7463 and Rules 170 through 175 . 18 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority 19 granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 20 This case is before the Court on Respondent' s 21 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on July 29, 2008 . 22 A hearing .was conducted on respondent's motion on 23 September 15, 2008, in Cheyenne, Wyoming . James .24 Robert Wheeler,, Jr . and Holly L . Wheeler appeared pr o 25 sese, and resided in Wyoming at the time the petitio n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 was filed . James E . Cannon appeared on behalf of respondent . Resolving a matter in response to a motion fo r summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings , answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together wit h acceptable affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law ." Rul e 10 121( b) ; Sundstrand Corp . v . Commissioner , 98 T . C . 518, 11 520 ( 1992 ) affd . 17 F .3d 965 (7th Cir . 1994) . Kroh 12 v . Commissioner , 98 T .C . 383, 389 (1992 ) 13 There are no answers to interrogatories, 14 depositions , or admissions in this case . Th e 15 pleadings consist of the petition and the answer . See 16 Rule 30 . Giving due regard to the statement s 17 contained in the pleadings , the representations made 18 in respondent ' s motion, and taking into account the 19 presentations made by the parties at the hearing, th e 20 Court is satisfied that there are no genuine issues 21> as to any material facts in this case . Consequently ., 22 disposition of the case upon summary judgment is 23 appropriate . 2 4 25 The undisputed facts in this case are easily summarized as follows. Over the years it appears tha t Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202)'628-4888 petitioners experienced financial difficulties brought on, at least in part, by the poor health of , and . medical treatment necessary with respect to one of them . In October or November .of 2005 petitioners ' Federal income tax returns for the years 1997 throug h 2.004, inclusive,-were filed (petitioners' returns . ) Income tax liabilities-totaling in excess of $15,00 0 :are shown on those returns . Along with their returns, petitioners submitted a $4,000-check payable to the Internal Revenue-Service (the check) . In the mem o portion of the check , petitioners inserted the words "payment in full- for taxes ( years) 1997 thru 2004 (including penalties ,_ interest and taxes) ." Th e check was accompanied by petitioners' October 29, 2005, letter to the Internal Revenue Service in which they made a brief reference to their medical problem s to."Please in the amount of $4, 000 as payment in full for all ou r taxes, interest and penalties for the years 1997 thr u 200.4" (the letter) tax liabilities reported o n petitioners' returns, along with related additions t o tax, penalties . and interest, . were assessed in due negotiated the check, and afte r $4,000 against those assessments, an outstanding . amount remained fo r each yea r (petitioners' . outstanding tax liabilities) . By letter date d January 20, 1997, responden t advised petitioners of his intent to levy in . order t o collect their outstanding-tax liabilities . Petitioner s timely requested and were afforded a n administrative hearing in'orde r o challeng e respondent's proposed collectio n action . At th e administrative hearing petitioners took the positio n 10 that because respondent negotiated the . check, thei r 11' outstanding-tax liabilitie s should be considere d 12 satisfied . Respondent's Appeals officer disagreed . 13 The position that petitioners took at the at the 14 administrative' hearing was, in effect, .a challenge t o 15 the existence ,and the amount,of their outstanding ta x 16 liabilities . See Boyd V . Comm issioner , 117 T .C . 12 7 17 .(20.01) . No other issues' were raised at th e 18 administrative hearing ., altho u gh respondent' s 19 Appeals officer apparently proposed a collection 20 alternative tha t was rejected by petitioners . 21 In a Notice of Determination Concernin g 2 2 23 24 Collection Actions (s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 , dated September-26, 2007, respondent determined tha t respondent 's" proposed levy action was an appropriat e 25 collection action with respect to petitioners' . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 outstanding tax liabilities . Prio r to that time , petitioners had-not submitted '(cid:127)a formal offer i n compromise with respect to . those liabilities . Petitioners, timely .,.petitioned . this Court i n response to that notice of determination . Consisten t with the .positon that they took at the administrativ e hearing, in their petition, . petitioners allege'tha t their outstanding,tax-,liabilit ies have been pai d because respondent accepted and negotiated the chec k 10 in settlement of those liabihities . The issue for decisio n is whether the check , 12:: or more precisely whether respondent ' s negotiation o f 13 that check , in effect, .; has fully .paid petitioners ' 14 outstanding tax liabilities . ° At noted, according t o 15 petitioners, thos e liabil ities have been paid . 6 Respondent disagrees, and for-the following reasons , as well as for the reasons set forth i n respondent' s I8 motion and respondent's thorough pretrial memorandum, that petitioners made i n satisfy completely thos e f the payment were made and accepte d Botany- Worsted Mills -v . United States , 27 8 See secs . 712 1 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-488 8 provision s it is clear that. the check as notated , and the letter that accompanied the check, even whe n considered together, . and even if common sense woul d do°.not satisfy the requirement s neither bound respondent,as . provided by the check an d the letter, nor constituted anacceptance to the offe r 13 of settlement that petitioners believed to have bee n 14 15, made'by the submission of those items . See Education Athletic - Assoc. ., . Inc .v .-.Commissioner , T .C . Memo . law would, under similar circumstances, provide th e opposite with respect to transactions between or among private parties .. Petitioners . outstanding tax liabilitie s 2i have'not been satisfied by .respondent's negotiation check . Becauseother . issues were raised b y ;23 - petitioners at the administrative hearinq, no othe r issues could . be considered in this proceeding . Se e 25 Giamelli v . Commissioner .129T .C ., .107 (2007) . In al l Heritage :. Reporting Corporation other respects, we are satisfied that respondent ha s .complied with the requirements set forth in sectio n 6.330, and nothing i n the - record suggests otherwise . It follows that respondent is entitled to judgment a s a matter, :of law-an d respo ndent's motion for summary judgment will" :be granted . To reflect the fo regoing, an appropriat e 1 11 . order and decision 'will b entered . This concludes-the Court's oral findings o f 10' fact "and °opinion in this cas-e . 11 (Whereupon, at .3 :20 ;p .m ., the bench opinio n 12 was concluded .) 13 .14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 // "Heritage Reportinq Corporatio n :(202")"''628-4888 k "M