TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James E. Moody
Docket Number: 1319-10L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/11/2011
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JAMES E . MOODY , Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket Nos. 1060-10L, 1319-10L. Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax ourt 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 hearing in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at San Francisco, California, on Magch 18, 2011, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 11, 2011 1 SERVED APR 1 4 2011 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 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke March 18, 2011 James E. Moody v Commissioner Docket Nos. 1060-10L, 1319-10L 3 THE COURT: 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. . These two dockets are before the Court today based upon a hearing and consideratio4 of motions for summary judgment filed by the Respondent in each docket. Both of the pending cases involve Respondent's efforts to collect income tax liabilities from the Petitioner. Docket No. 1060-10L involves Petitioner's 2003 and 2004 federal income tax liabilities, which Respondent seeks to collect based upon a final notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing given to the Petitioner on June 30th, 2009. Petitioner submitted a timely form 12153, request for a collection due process or equivalent hearing in response to the notice of levy,.and Petitioner seeks both in that request for a hearing and in the present case an opportunity to discuss the underlying tax liabilities associated with his 2003 and 2004 federal income taxes. Respondent has established, and Petitioner does 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 4 not contest with any specific evidence that Petitioner received notices of deficiency at his last known address for both of the years 2003 and 2004 Petitioner does not contest that the addresses to which the notices of deficiency were sent were his last known address. He merely argues that Respondent has failed to prove that he actually received the notices of deficiency. We are satisfied, based upon the information submitted in the context of Res ondent's motion for summary judgment relative to Docket 1060-10L, that notices of deficiency for those two years in question were mailed to Petitioner's last known address And we find that the Petitioner failed to establish that the notices were actually received at thag addreas (sic). We determine that Pet tioner's blanket assertion that Respondent must establish that he actually received the notice is not in conformity with the law and with the facts which demonstrate that the notices of deficiency were in fact mailed to the Petitioner. It is notewort y that the notice of levy and other correspondence sent to the Petitioner relative to Respondent's proposed collection activities were mailed to the ,same address as the notices of deficiency which Petitioner claims to have not received. The settlement officer also confirmed that the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 Petitioner was not in bankruptcy and did not have an offer- in-compromise or an installment agreement pending, as part of his review of the years 2003 and 2004. Receipt of a notice of deficiency means the receipt in time to petition the Tax Court. Treasury Regs. section 301.6320-1(e) (3)Q&A-E-2, 301.6330-1(e) (3)Q&A-E-2; Lee v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 77 (2007). Respondent has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the receipt requirement has been satisfied. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604 (2000). Respondent can rely on the presumption of official regularity in delivery if the record shows proper mailing of the notice of deficiency Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Bailey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.2005-241. Also, if a taxpayer received a prior CDP notice for the same tax and taxable period, whether or not the taxpayer requested a CDP.hearing, the taxpayer is deemed to have had an opportunity to disp4te the underlying tax liability. Treasury Regs. section 301.6320-1(e) (3)Q&A-E-7; Bell v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 356 (2006). Regarding Docket No. 1319-10L, Respondent has also filed a motion for summagy judgment, as previously stated. This docket involves proposed notices of federal tax lien for federal income tax liabilities for 2000, 2001, 2003, and 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 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628|-4888 | 6 l 2004. Once again, Petitioner asserts that he should be allowed to challenge the underlying tax liabilities for those years. It is noteworthy that (there is an overlap between the years involved in the two dockets, to the extent of at least two of the years. i In the declaration of the settlement officer associated with the hearing pro¶ided to the Petitioner relative to the 2000, 2003, and 2004 notice of federal tax lien, in Docket No. 1319-10L, the settlement officer asserts that, from reviewing transcripts of Petitioner's accounts with the Internal Revenue Service, she determined that the Petitioner did not file income tax returns for 2000, 2003, and 2004, and that Respondent prepared substitute-for- returns for those years. She also determined that Respondent correctly analyzed Respondent's records to acquire Petitioner's last known address, using the address used on the 2002 federal income tax return which Petitioner filed which was received on April 17th, 2003. This is the same address Petitioner continues to use to date, and was used before the Court in this case and in all the activities at Petitioner's collection due process hearings. The settlement officer also determined that hAS Petitioner not filed federal income tax returns for 2005 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 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 through 2008. The declaration submitted by Respondent,'s counsel in support of the motion for summary judgment in Docket No. 1319-10L demonstrates thát certified mailing lists maintained by Respondent with respect to post office mailings demonstrate that notices of deficiency were mailed by certified mail to the Petitioner for the years 2000, .2001, and 2003. Off the record for a minute. (Pause.) THE COURT: Baök on the record. The notice of determination issued to the - Petitioner which underlies the case in Docket No. 1319-10L demonstrates that Respondent's settlement officer provided Petitioner the opportunity to submit tax returns for 2003 and 2004 to replace substitute-for-returns which were prepared by the Internal'Revenuè Service. Petitioner declined to submit this information, and this fact alone would bar his ability to challenge the underlying tax liabilities for 2003 and 2004, regardless of whether he received the notices of deficiency, because he has failed to properly raise the underlying tax liability with the settlement offiãer in áccord with the requirements of section 6330. Having failed to do so, we may not consider issues which were not properly raised with 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 8 settlement officer. Given the information in support of Respondent's motions for summary judgment, and the totality of the circumstances in this case, we find there is no factual issue, and that summary judgment is appropriate, in accord with Rule 121(b) and Sundstrand Corporation v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992) affg. em'Mß 17 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 1994); and Zantz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988). The present case presents no genuine issues of material fact regarding the questions raised in Respondent's motion for summary judgment, and decision will be rendered as a matter of law. Petitioner also asserts that he's entitled to a face-to-face meeting, but he failed to produce the underlying information sought by Respondent's settlement officer which would have given substance to an underlying meeting. Under the circumstances where a taxpayer fails to raise substantial issues before requesting a face-to-face hearing, it is appropria e for the settlement officer to merely offer a telephone interview. The Petitioner s also failed to demonstrate that to qualify for collection alternatives he must be in compliance with subsequent-year filing requirements. Rodriquez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.2003-153. Nor has he provided the requested financial 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 information necessary for the consideration of collection alternatives. Olson v. United States, 414 F.3d 144, 154 (1st Cir. 2005). Finally, we find that in both the dockets in question, the settlement;officer properly confirmed that Respondent had followed proper assessment procedures and properly balanced Respondent's-need for collection with the inconvenience on the Petitioner. Given our determinations in this case, decisions will be entered in both dockets for the Respondent, in accord with Respondent's motion for summary judgment, which will be granted. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in these cases . (Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888