TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Aiste K. Guden
Docket Number: 29911-08S
Judge: Gerber
Opinion Type: summary
Filed: 12/29/2009
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT AISTE K . GUDEN, Petitioner v . _ COMMISSIONER OF' INTERNAL!REVENUEt. .Respondent .a .Docket 'No . 29911-08S,_ .Aiste K .'Guden, pro se . Mark S . Schwarz , for respondent-. GERBER, Judcte This case was heard pursuant .- to the <= a provisions 'of section 7463, . of . .the 'Internal Revenue Code in .effect . when' the'petition<< was filed .Pursuant to -section° :7463 (b) the - decision tobe entered is . note reviewable°by any . other court, arid , 'Unless otherwise indicated all section references are t o the Internal Revenue Code of'1986-as amended, and all Rule references are to the . Tax Court Rules of Practice : and Procedure . 2 - this opinion shall not be treated as precedent. for any other case . Respondent notified petitioner of the intent to file notice s of Federal tax lien and to proceed by levy with collection of petitioner' s 2004 and 2005 income tax liabilities . Petitione r sought administrative'review and subsequently petitioned thi s Court for relief-from respondent's determination to proceed wit h collection . After this case had been calendared for trial at the October 26,,.2'009, Las Vegas, Nevada, trial session of this Court respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, which wa s calendared for a .hearing at the trial session . Petitioner did not respond to respondent's motion or appear at the scheduled hearing : The question we consider is whether there was an abuse of discretion in respondent's determination to proceed with collection activity . Background .Respondent sent petitioner, for her 2004,and 2005 tax years , a notice of,intent to-levy and a notice of Federal tax-lien o n February 25 and April 4, .. .2008, respectively . Petitioner sought a hearing with respect~to,both notices, and a-single hearing was- .. ,scheduled for both .,"Respondent issued-one determination approving the filing of the notices and decision to proceed with collection ; and petitioner timely petitioned this Court t o commence Pth,is4collection proceeding (collection case) . I r For 2004 and 2005 petitioner - f'led come% tax returns reflecting a-self=assessed andunpaid'tax liability fo r each year . Respondent audited= both- returns and-on . August 11", 2008,° issued notices of deficiency in' income tax- from, Which- petitioner.. filed one single' petition to commence a-xdeficiency-, . proceeding . in this Court,, which has been:designated dock et'No ..- 29 .843-08S (deficiency 'case) 2 The- collection and deficiency cases . were .placed on this . Court's October',26, .E2009, trial session at Las Vegas, Nevada . :Petitioner failed to appear, at . the (trial-(cid:127), . ' session, and respondent' 'filed a motion 'to dismiss,for jack of prosecution in the deficiency case . Subsequently, on Novembe r 12„"2009, the Court granted- - respondent' s, motion °in the&defisienc y case and'entered an-order of dismissalk-and decision with respec t to the income tax- deficiencies' for 20 .04 and 2005 .. In seeking an ..administrative°hearing'regardirg collection , ,petitioner ~explained,,that her ' .reason was that she "dispute's the " underlying liability * * * [and that she]-cannot of-ford totpa y the :liability and wishes it to be shown , as'currently no t collectible .!' -. 'Petitioner- was contacted by "the ' Appeals Off ice July 1, 2008, the settlement' officer sent(cid:127)petitioner a lette r 2As :explained later,' petitioner filed for bankruptcy during July 2008 . It is .notedthat the issuance - of, the notices,of' . deficiency was not affected .by the bankruptcy proceeding ., Petitioner's time to file a petition, however, was suspendedby sec : . 6213 (f) and-_11 U .S .C . 'sec . 362(a)(8) (2006) . - 4-- setting July 31, ., .2008,-for a face-to-face, hearing and requeste d that petitioner complete and submit a Form .433-A, Collection Information Statement. for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, to- .ssist in the hearing process . On July 1, 2008, petitioner fii-led for chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in the U .S . District Court for the District of Nevada, and the . administrative*collection process and the hearing were suspended during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding . Petitioner's bankruptcy case was dismissed on September~22, 2008,, no discharg e was issued, and petitioner's 2004 and 2005 :self-assessed tax liabilities remained outstanding and unsatisfied . On,,,September 26, 2008, respondent proposed an October 29,, 2008,,hearing date . -Petitioner's .-representative advised respondent on October 28, 2008, .that he no longer represented he r and .that he would advise petitioner of the hearing date ; Petitioner did not appear for(cid:127)the ;October 29,°2008, hearing . October_29, 2008,-petitioner was sent notification of a . ne w hearing date, .: November,132008, but petitioner did .not appear for that scheduled hearing . The settlement . officer issued Notice of . Determination,.Concerning Collection Action(s), Under SectionF6320 and/or 6330 on November 26, 2008, from whic h petitioner sought review by this Court . . Discussion ' Summary judgment may be granted when there- issue of material ',fact' and a decision may be ,rendered as= a matter of law ., Rule 121(b) ; Sundstrand Corp . v . Commissioner , 98 ;T . C . 518, 520 (1992) affd .: 17F .3d. 965 (7th Cir . 1994) The opposing party cannot rest .-upon mere, .allegations, or denials, . in hi s pleadings . Rule 121(d) The moving party bears the'burden o proving- that - there . is no genuine issue . of materialf"act, an d factual inferences. will=be read in a manner -most '-favorable'to th e party-opposing°summary :judgment . . Dahlstrom v Commissioner ,. 85 ' T .C .812, 821 ( 1985 ) - Jacklin' v . Commissioner , 7-9-T .C . . 340" 344 ' ' (1982) ,, There is nwdispute aboutx the, facts ; in this I case, = . and ; i t is ripe for' resolution, as a matter ' of law, by means of summary judgment . ,Petitioner filed,returns for 2004 and 2005 1and reporte d income tax due - but . did not pay it . . Following. anx4"audi t examination : respondent -- issued, notices of 'deficiency :for the same . tax' years, and' petitioner petitioned this Court :.-with respect t o those determinations . Petitioner =had' the opportunity to> question the underlying merits of .respondent''s,deficiency determination s but failed to come forward , and a decisi'on' .was entered-"in the deficiency case with respect to the .income'tax as determined i n respondent''s notices' of : deficiency .; - 6 The summary judgment motion we consider concerns respondent's collection activity for the self-assessed tax liabilities .'. Regarding the self assessed and unpaid-tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005, petitioner raised the underlying,- me.rits .,ofthose assessments and_explained .that she could not pay the tax liabilities (apparently,, shewas'seeking collection "alternatives) . Petitioner was afforded two separate opportunities fora face-to-face meeting regarding respondent' s proposed collection activity . . She did~notattend eithe r scheduled meeting,wnor did .she submit the requested Form 433-A so that-the settlement officer could consider collection alternatives . .. Petitioner ' s . failure toicome , forward and/or t o ti raise -the question of the, underlying merits of,,her ;self- assessed tax liabilities . is of her own doing and is not an abuse of discretion on'.respondent'.s part . See . Giamelli-v . Commissioner , 129 T .C . 107 (2007) . ._Accordingly, and because petitioner had, opportunities to question the merits,of the underlyin g liabilities and did not, we considerrespondent's .actions under an abuse of discretion standard . See sec . 6330(c)(2 .)(B) ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T . C-. -1 76 (2000) . In . general, . petitioner' s . failure to . come' forward and to . present her position results in no abuse of discretion by respondent in sustaining the decision .to approve the action of filing the notices of lien and to go forward with collection activity by levy . Respondent also offered petitioner the opportunity to present financial information so that collection . alternatives could be considered . Petitioner failed to submi t any information .- It appears, from the affidavit supplied by respondent and the determination letter,_that the .settlemen t officer considered the verification requirements . The settlement officer also 'considered the issues petitioner raised and whether the proposed collection action balanced the .need .for efficient : collection with any legitimate concerns of petitioner . IInder,'these circumstances,-respondent's motion for summar y :judgment will be granted, and the determinatio n approving th e filing of lien. notices and, t o proceed with collection was not an abuse of discretion . To reflect the foregoing , An appropriate order an d decision will be entered .