TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Calvin Wilder
Docket Number: 27963-11L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/14/2013
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CALVIN WILDER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 27963-11L. ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk ofthe Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy ofthe pages ofthe transcript ofthe trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Miami, Florida, containing his oral findings offact 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. January 14, 2013 SERVED JAN 15 2013 Capital Reporting Company Calvin Wilder 11-29-2012 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke November 3 2 3 4 29, 2012 Calvin Wilder v. Commissioner Docket No. 27310-11 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and 6 7 the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and 8 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case. 10 11 This case is before the Court pursuant to our jurisdiction to review Respondent's decisions to 12 proceed with collection after collection hearings 13 under section 6330 (d) . The Petitioner resided in 14 Florida at the time the petition was filed in this 15 case. 16 17 18 This opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure and section 7459(b). Section references are to the 19 Internal Revenue Code and Rule references hereinafter 20 are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 21 22 Before the Court is Respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121. Rule 121(b) 23 provides that a decision may be rendered "if the 24 pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, 25 admissions and any other acceptable materials, (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Calvin Wilder 11-29-2012 1 2 3 4 together with the affidaviits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law". In the present case, Respondent filed the 4 5 motion for summary judgmerit on September 6, 2012. 6 The Court issued an order on September 7, 2012 7 directing the Petitioner on or before October 10, 8 2012 to file a response to Respondent's motion. 9 Petitioner failed to file a response to Respondent's 10 motion. The Court set the motion for hearing on 11 November 26, 2012 at 10:0p a.m. in Miami, Florida. 12 The Petitioner failed to appear at the directed time. 13 And the Petitioner failed to submit any information 14 in support of his position in opposition to 15 Respondent's motion at any time after the motion was 16 filed. 17 18 The only position argued by the Petitioner in his petition and in his prior hearing with the 19 Internal Revenue Service1settlement officer was that 20 Petitioner had paid the Ònderlying liabilities 21 pursuant to a $274,000 payment he made in 2007. 22 Respondent's settlement officer ascertained from a 23 review of Internal Revenue Service transcripts that 24 Petitioner's liability a:s a responsible officer of 25 Storm Shield Protection Corporation was credited with (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Calvin Wilder 11-29-2012 a payment for periods ending March 31, 2006, June 30, 5 2006, September 30, 2006, and December 31, 2006. The settlement 1 2 3 4 officer determined that these were the periods that 5 Petitioner a±cr£t.ed the payments be associated with. 6 Those periods were deemed'full paid pursuant to 7 Petitioner's $274,000 payment and they are not in 8 dispute in the present case. 9 However, Respondent has also determined 10 that Petitioner is liable; for trust fund penalties 11 pursuant to section 6672 for periods ending December 12 13 31, 2000, September 30, 2001, March 31, 2002, June 30, 2002, September 30, 2002, December 31, 2002, 14 March 31, 2003, June 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, 15 June 30, 2005, December 31, 2006 and June 30, 2007. 16 Petitioner made no argument with respect to any other 17 18 reason why he was not liable for these periods, and he has not provided any information which would cause 19 us to doubt the collection officer's determination 20 that he was properly credited with the $274,000 21 payment previously discussed. 22 The present case involves Respondent's 23 attempt to collect the assessed civil penalties noted 24 preciously pursuant to a notice of federal tax lien 25 filing and notice of your right to a hearing, which (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Calvin Wilder 11-29-2012 6 1 was served on the Petitioner on arch 15, 2011. 2 Petitioner timely filed a Form 12153 requesting a 3 collection due process hearing. The settlement 4 officer assigned to Petitioner's case sent a letter 5 6 7 8 to the Petitioner and Petitioner's authorized representative dated August 25, 2011 and scheduled a telephone conference to be held on September 29, 2011 to discuss Petitioner's case. The settlement officer 9 also advised the Petitioner in this letter that the 10 Petitioner should prepare a Form 433-A and submit 11 12 that information required to the settlement officer if the Petitioner wished to se·ek a collection 13 alternative. 14 On September 8,, 2011, Petitioner's 15 authorized representativel called the settlement 16 officer and requested to rescheduled the conference 17 18 to October 4, 2011. The settlement officer duly rescheduled the conference and advised the Petitioner 19 and authorized representative that the Form 433-A, 20 along with supporting documentation, needed to be 21 submitted before the rescheduled conference. 22 23 A telephone conference was held on October 4, 2011 and Petitioner's'authorized representative 24 maintained that the liab;ility at issue had already 25 been paid. He referenced the $274,000 payment (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Calvin Wilder 11-29-2012 7 1 previously discussed. No documentation was presented 2 relative to the tax periods at issue concerning 3 Respondent's current requést for a notice of federal 4 5 6 tax lien filing, nor was any information submitted regarding the form 433-A which the settlement officer had advised was necessary in order for collection 7 alternatives to be considered. 8 As of November 1, 2011 neither Petitioned 9 nor his authorized represëntative had submitted any 10 information to the settlesent officer. On November 11 1, 2011 the settlement officer caused a notice of 12 determination concerning collection action under 13 section 6320 and/or 6330 to be issued to Petitioner 14 with respect to Petitioner's civil penalties for the 15 tax periods listed previously. The Petitioner timely 16 petitioned this Court on Òecember 7, 2011. 17 Petitioner's petition makes, once again, the same 18 argument that he had previously paid the $274,000 19 which the settlement officer determined had been 20 applied to either periods. 21 Section 6330 (c) (3) requires an IRS 22 settlement officer to take into consideration the 23 following items when issuing a notice of 24 determination: (A) Verification that the 25 requirements of applicable law and administrative (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Calvin Wilder 11-29-2012 1 procedures have been met. (B) Any issues raised by 2 the taxpayer, and (C) Whether any proposed collection 3 action balances the need for the efficient collection 4 of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person 5 that any collection be no more intrusive than 8 6 necessary. 7 8 9 Based upon the affidavit submitted by the settlement officer in support of Respondent's motion for summary judgment andi the other information 10 available to the Court, the Court finds that the 11 12 settlement officer properly performed these three functions and that the notice of determination was 13 proper and that the determination to proceed with the 14 collection action pursuant to the filing of a notice 15 of federal tax lien was not an abuse of discretion. 16 Given the Court's analysis, the Court will 17 grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment and a 18 decision will be entered for the Respondent. This 19 concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and 20 opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 21 22 23 2 4 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012