TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Kevin D. Donahugh
Docket Number: 15110-11L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/26/2012
Pages: 5

SEC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 KEVIN D. DONAHUGH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDE R Docket No. 15.110-11L. 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 petitioners and to.respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at New Orleans, Louisiana, containing his oral findings óf fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 26, 2012 SERVED Nov 27 2012 Capital Reporting Company Kevin D. Donahugh 10-24-2012 3 1 2 3 4 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JOSEPH ROBERT GOEKE KEVIN D. DONAHUGH V. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 15110-11L OCTOBER 24, 2012 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of Fact and Opinion in this case, and 6 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 7 Fact and Opinion. The oral findings of Fact and 8 Opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case. 10 This opinion is rendered pursuant to Tax 11 Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 152 and Internal 12 Revenue Code section 7459. The Court has 13 jurisdiction over this case under section 6330(d) of 14 15 the Internal Revenue Code, which allows a petitioner to seek review of respondent's proposed collection 16 action after a hearing pursuant to section 6330. 17 18 Respondent filed a motion for summary. judgment in the present case and petitioner and 19 resporrdent appeared on October 22nd, 2·012. · · 20 Petitioner did not offer any argument in opposition 21 to respondent's motion and did not contest any of the 22 facts set forth in respondent's motion. The only 23. position petitioner took in opposition to 24 respondent's proposed collection action during the 25 hearing, which petitioner was provided pursuant to (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Kevin D. Donahugh 10-24-2012 1 section 6330, was that the petitioner did not owe the 4 2 underlying tax liability. 3 4 5 6 7 Petitioner failed to file an income tax return for 2006. Pursuant to section 6020 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code, respondent filed a substitute for return. After notice and demand was made upon the petitioner, he failed to pay the liability 8 determined by respondent in the substitute return. 9 In October 2009 respondent issued a statutory notice 10 of deficiency to the petitioner for the year 2006. 11 Petitioner did not file a petition with the Tax Court 12 to contest this deficiency determination and 13 respondent assessed the tax shown in the notice of 14 deficiency. 15 After the assessment in November of 2010, 16 respondent sent petitioner a form letter 3172, Notice 17 of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a 18 Hearing, under IRC section 6320, advising petitioner 19 that Respondent had filed a notice of Federal Tax 20 Lien with respect to his unpaid liabilities for 2006. 21 Petitioner timely requested a hearing relative to 22 this Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing. Respondent's 23 appeals officer notified the petitioner that he would 24 have to file an amended return to raise any issues 25 regarding the underlying liability. Petitioner (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Kevin D. Donahugh 10-24-2012 1 failed to submit an amended return. The settlement 2 officer also advised the petitioner that if he wished 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 to pursue a collection alternative he would need to submit certain information to her, including an information statement in Form 433-A. The petitioner failed to do this and he failed to timely file returns for intermediate years after 2006. As previously stated, the only issue 9 petitioner raised was that he did not owe the 10 underlying tax liability for 2006. Pursuant to 11 section 6330 (c) (2) (B) we cannot review the underlying 12 liability for the year 2006 in the context of the 13 present case because petitioner was barred from . 14 raising that liability in the hearing he was provided 15 pursuant to Section 6320 and Section 6330. 16 When Petitioner received a notice of 17 deficiency and failed to petition the Tax Court a bar 18 was raised which provides that we are not able to 19 review the underlying liability in the present case. 20 This is well established in the statute and is 21 confirmed by the underlying precedent in our court, 22 Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2001). 23 Petitioner has not maintained that he did 24 not receive the notice of deficiency, which would 25 relieve him of the bar to raise the liability in the (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com . 2012 Capital Reporting Company Kevin D. Donahugh 10-24-2012 1 present matter. Respondent has alleged in the motion 2 for summary judgment, which is uncontested, that the 6 3 notice of deficiency was timely mailed to the 4 Petitioner, and we may rely upon Respondent's 5 assertions based upon a presumption of official 6 regularity and delivery, Sego v. Commissioner, 114 7 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). 8 9 Given the fact that. the petitioner may not raise the underlying liability in the present case we 10 have no recourse but to sustain respondent's 11 collection action and to grant respondent's motion 12 for summary judgment. This concludes the Court's 13 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 8:39 a.m., the bench opinion in above-entitled matter was concluded.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012