TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Wayemon D. Powell
Docket Number: 29470-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/23/2010
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES'TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 20217 { WAYEMON D . .POWELL, Petitioner , v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 29470-08 S 0 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 Los Angeles, California, o n January 14, 2010, 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 willbe entered for respondent . (Signed) Lewis R . Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . February 23, 2010 'FRAMED FEB 2 5 2010 t 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 Powell v . Commissioner Docket No . 29470-08S 3 January 14, 201 0 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to rende r 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and 6 the following represents the Court's oral findings o f I 7 fact and opinion . 8 Unless otherwise indicated, sectio n 9 references contained in the bench opinion are to th e 10 Internal Revenue Code of'1986, as amended, in effec t 11 for the relevant period . Rule references at to the 12 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 13 This Section 6330(d) proceeding is conducted 14 as a small tax case pursuant to the provisions o f 15 Section 7463 and Rules 17'0 through 175 .'! This bench 16 opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted b y 17 Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 18 'This case is before the Court on 19 Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgement filed 20 December 10, 2009 . A hearing was conducted on 21 Respondent's motion on January 11, 2010,' in Los 22 Angeles, California . Wayemon D . Powell,j who at al l 23 times relevant, resided in California, appeared pro se 24 and opposed the motion . Anna A . Long appeared on 25 behalf of Respondent and argued in support of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 motion . 2 Giving due regard to the representations 3 made in Respondent's motion and taking into account 4 the presentations made by the parties at the hearing, 5 the Court is satisfied that there are n genuin e 6 issues as to any material facts in thisl.case . 7 Consequently , disposition of the case upon summary 1 8 judgment is appropriate . Rule 121( b) ; Sundstrand 9 Corp . v . Commissioner , 98fT .C . 518, 520 ( 1992), 10 affirmed 17 F .3rd 965 (7th Circuit 1994)I . 11 In a notice of determination concernin g 12 collection action( s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330 , 13 dated November 6, 2008, Respondent determined that the 14 Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) filed with respect 15 to Petitioner's 2004 and 2005 federal income ta x 16 liabilities is an appropriate collectionaction . 17 The issues for decision are : (1) Whether in 18 this proceeding Petitioner may challengelthe existenc e 19 or the amounts of the above - referenced outstanding 20 income tax liabilities ; and (2 ) whether Respondent's 1 21 determination to proceed with the collection action by 22 sustaining the NFTL is an abuse of discretion . 23 The underlying facts in this proceeding are 24 straightforward and easily summarized . Petitione r 25 received a notice of deficiency for 2004 but did not Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 challenge that deficiency in a proceeding before this 2 Court . See Sections 6212 and 6213 . Instead, afte r 3 the deficiency and related amounts were duly assessed , 4 Petitioner sought and received audit reconsideratio n 5 and the amount originally assessed for 2004 was 6 substantially reduced as a result . 7 Petitioner's 2005 outstanding federal income 8 tax liability results from the assessment of a 9 deficiency and related amounts pursuant to an 10 agreement entered into between Petitioner and 11 Respondent . See Section 6213(d) . 12 Because all or portions of the above- . I 13 referenced assessments remained unpaid s of June 3, 14 2008, the NFTL was filed on that date and Petitioner 15 was appropriately notified of the event~by letter of 16 the same date . See Section 6320(a) . Peititione r 17 timely requested and received an administrative 18 hearing . In his request Petitioner : (1!) Asked for a 19 "monthly payment plan" and (2) wanted to! discuss his 20 "right to a tax break . " 21 Respondent has consistently construed this 22 15 e 4 a point as a challenge to the existence or th e 23 amount of his 2004 and/or 2004 federal income ta x 24 liabilities . Consequently because Petitioner received 25 a notice of deficiency for 2004, and becaus e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Petitioner agreed to the assessment of Ithe deficiency 2 for 2005, Respondent's settlement officer did no t 3 consider Petitioner's apparent challenge to the 4 amounts of the liabilities for those years . 5 Instead, after . proceeding in { manne r 6 contemplated by Sections 6320 ( c) and 63~0(c), 7 Respondent ' s settlement officer considere d 8 Petitioner's request fora "monthly payment plan" or , 9 in a more technical reference, an installment 10 agreement . See Section 6l59 . In so doing the 11 settlement officer requested certain financia l 12 information from Petitioner, but Petitioner neve r 13 supplied the requested information . 14 In proceedings such as this, a taxpayer may 15 challenge the existence or the amount of th e 16 underlying tax liability only if the taxpayer did not 17 receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have a n ti 18 opportunity to dispute the liability . See Section 19 6330(c)(2)(B) ; cf . Montgomery v . Commissioner , 122 20 T .C . 1, 8 (2004) . 21 In this case Petitioner received a notice of 22 deficiency for 2004, and he agreed to the liabilit y 23 for 2005 . Consequently he may not in this Section 24 6330(d) proceeding challenge the existence or th e 25 amount of the liability for either of these years, and Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 it was not improper for Respondent's settlement 2 officer to ignore his request for a "tax break" . 3 Furthermore, because Petitioner failed to 4 respond to the settlement officer's request for 5 financial information, the settlement o ficer's denia l f 6 of Petitioner's request for an installment agreement 7 was not inappropriate . See Long v . Commissioner , T . 8 C . Memo . 2010-7 and the cases on that point cited i n 9 that opinion . 10 We note that even if Petitioner otherwise i 11 was at the time (or subsequently becomes) entitled to 12 an installment agreement5under Section 6159(c) , 13 Respondent's failure to withdraw or release the NFTL 14 would not necessarily have been an abuse o f 15 discretion . See Crisan v . Commission , T .C . Memo . 16 2007-67 ; Section 301 .6159-1(f)(3), Procedural and 17 Administrative Regs . (formerly Section 301 .6159- 18 1(d)(3), Procedural and Administrative kegs .) We 19 further note, as Respondent acknowledged at th e 20 hearing, Petitioner's entitlement to anlinstallment 21 agreement can and should be considered by Responden t 22 independent of this proceeding . 23 In all other respects we are satisfied tha t 24 Respondent has proceeded in accordance w r ith th e 25 provisions of Section 6320 and 6330 and Petitioner Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) .628-4888 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 does not suggest otherwise . It followsitha t Respondent's motion for summary judgment, file d December 10,2009, should be granted . To reflect the .foregoing, an appropriat e order and decision will be entered . This concludes ,,the Court's oral findings o f fact and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at '12 :35 p .m ., the bench opinio n in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888