TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Elyce Marie Moore
Docket Number: 10187-10S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/24/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ELYCE MARIE MOORE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 10187-10. O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith the pages of the to Petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of the trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge John F. Dean at San Francisco, California, on January 28, 2011, containing his oral fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of findings of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) John F. Dean Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 24, 2011 8ERVED FEB 2 8 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 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge John F. Dean January 28, 2011 Elyce Marie Moore v. Commissioner Docket No. 10187-10S 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. In this bench opinion, all section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year at issue, and all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure. This case is heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority. The petition in this case was filed in response to a notice of determination concerning collection actions under section 6320 and/or 6330. From now on I'll call it the notice of determination. Pursuant to sections 6320È and 6330(d), Petitioner seeks review of Respondent's determination to proceed with collection of the tax liability for 2005. The issue for decision is whether the appeals officer abused his discretion in sustaining a proposed levy to collect Petitioner's unpaid 2005 tax liability. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 There is no stipulation of facts and no exhibits were received into evidence at trial. At the time the petition in this case was filed, Petitioner resided in California. The only issue raised by the Petitioner in the 6330 hearing, in the petition, and at trial addressed Petitioner's underlying tax liability. During the administrative proceedings, Petitioner neither asked for alternative means of collection nor submitted requested financial information. Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot proceed with collection by way of a levy until the taxpayer's been given notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the matter, in the form of an appeals office hearing. And if dissatisfied, the person may obtain judicial review of the administrative determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000). Section 6330F prescribes the matters that a person may raise at an appeals officie hearing. A taxpayer may raise any relevant issue pertaining to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including collection issues such as spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the Commissioner's intended collection action, and possible alternative means of collection, such as an offer in compromise. 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 I 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 5 Section 6330(c) (2) (]B) provides that the existence and amount of the underlying tax liability can be contested at an appeals office hearing only if the taxpayer did not receive a notice of deficiency for the taxes in question, or did not otherwise have an earlier opportunity to dispute the tax liability. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 180-181. Where the validity of the tax liability is not properly part of the appeal, the taxpayer may challenge the determination of the appeals officer for abuse of discretion.. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 609-610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-182. Respondent alleged that Petitioner was sent a notice of deficiency in this case, upon the default of which the assessment in this case is based. While Petitioner did not dispute that the notice was sent, she denied receiving the notice. When given the opportunity, however, Petitioner was unable to produce material evidence to show that she was not liable for the underlying tax assessment. Therefore, the Court reviews the determination for abuse of discretion. Petitioner objects to the appropriateness of the proposed collection action. Questions about the appropriateness of the collection action include whether it is proper for the Commissioner to proceed with the collection action as determined in the notice of 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 6 determination, and whether the type and/or method of collection chosen by the Commissioner is appropriate. See, e.g., Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003) (that was a challenge to the appropriateness of the collection, reviewed for abuse of discretion). In order for Petitioner to prevail under the abuse-of-discretion standard, it is not enough for the Court to conclude that the Court would not have authorized collection. The Court must conclude that in authorizing collection, the appeals officer has exercised discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact. Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412, 452 (1993); accord Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1084 (1988). The Court on the basis of the meager record presented to it concludes that the appeals officer reasonably determined that the proposed collection action is appropriate. Respondent's determination to proceed with the collection action was not an abuse of discretion. Decision will be entered for Respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888