TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Flow-Eze Company
Docket Number: 5511-16SL
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/23/2017
Pages: 5

ALS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 FLOW-EZE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 5511-16SL COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is 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 in the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Chicago, Illinois, containing his 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, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 7, 2016, will be granted and a decision entered for respondent. Dated: Washington, D.C. February 23, 2017 (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge SERVED Feb 24 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 2 Carluzzo 3 4 5 6 February 9, 2017 Flow-Eze Company v. Commissioner Docket No. 5511-16SL THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 7 Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case and 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the following represents the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion (bench opinion). Section reference contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6330(d) proceeding is subject to the Small Tax Case provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and rule 152. Pursuant to section 7463(b) the decision entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. This case set for trial during the Chicago, Illinois trial session of the Court that began on February 6, 2017, is before the Court on Respondent's 25 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 7, 2016 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com . Capital Reporting Company 4 1 (motion). By Order dated December 8, 2016, the 2 motion was set for hearing in Chicago, Illinois on 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 February 8, 2017. Pursuant to that Order, a hearing was conducted on Respondent's motion as scheduled. Alexander R. Roche appeared on behalf of Respondent and argued in support of the motion. There was no appearance on Petitioner's behalf. Giving due regard to the representations made in Respondent's motion and taking into account 10 Petitioner's failure to respond to the motion, the 11 Court is satisfied that there are no genuine issues 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 as to any material facts in this case. Consequently, disposition of the case upon summary judgment is. appropriate. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992) aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th C gg4) The undisputed facts relied upon by Respondent in support of the motion are easily summarized. In a Notice of Determination Concerning 20 Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, 21 22 dated January 25, 2016, Respondent determined that a proposed levy is an appropriate collection action 23 with respect to certain of Petitioner's outstanding 24 25 Federal tax liabilities (underlying liabilities). A review of the petition and the administrative record 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 shows that Petitioner does not dispute the amount or the existence of the underlying liabilities, which were assessed as a result of Federal taxes shown on, but unpaid with Petitioner's Federal tax returns for the relevant periods. Furthermore, nothing submitted by Petitioner suggests that Respondent's Settlement 7 Officer failed to "obtain.verification from the 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met" as required by section 6330(c)(1). Instead, according to Petitioner, Respondent's failure to allow collection alternatives to the proposed levy is an abuse of discretion. Petitioner's request for collection alternatives was appropriat 3made during the administrative hearing, but in addition to 17 Petitioner's then current non-compliance with its 18 19 20 Federal tax obligations, Petitioner did not supply the financial information requested by Respondent's settlement officer. Under the circumstances, 21 Petitioner's entitlement to one or more of the 22 23 24 25 collection alternatives required an analysis of its current financial information. Maselli v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-19; see generally Internal Revenue Manual, pt. 5.14.1.3 (Sept. 26, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 2008). Petitioner's failure to supply the requested financial information, in and of itself, justifies the settlement officer's rejection of Petitioner's request for a collection alternative to the proposed .levy. See, e.g., Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1 (2004) aff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005). In all other respects, we are satisfied that Respondent has proceeded as required by section 6330 and nothing submitted by Petitioner or otherwise contained in the record suggests otherwise. In the absence of any input by Petitioner, we find Respondent's motion to be well-made and it will be granted. . It should be noted, however, that the collection alternatives that Petitioner here seeks . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 might be available to him independent of this proceeding. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. This concludes the Court's bench opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 1:51 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com