TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Isaiah Bongam
Docket Number: 20104-14L
Judge: Gustafson
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/17/2017
Pages: 21

49 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ISAIAH BONGAM, Petitioner, v. SD ) ) ) ) Docket No. 20104-14 L. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b) of the Tax Court 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 proceedings in the above case before the undersigned judge at Washington, D.C., containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate decision will be entered. (Signed) David Gustafson Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 17, 2017 SERVED Nov 17 2017 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bench Opinion by Judge David Gustafson October 23, 2017 Bongam v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 20104-14L THE COURT: The Court has decided to render the following as its oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, and Tax Court Rule 152, and it shall not be relied on as precedent in any other case. By a "Notice of Determination" dated April 30, 2014 (Ex. 1-J) ("original NOD"), and a supplemental notice 13 of determination dated April 19, 2017 (Ex. 7-J) 14 15 ("supplemental NOD"), the Office of Appeals of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") sustained the IRS's prior 16 determination to file a notice of lien to collect Mr. 17 Bongam's unpaid liabilities for trust fund recovery 18 penalties ("TFRPs") assessed pursuant to section 6672(a). 19 Mr. Bongam disputes his liability for the TFRPs. We will 20 21 22 sustain the supplemental NOD in part and deny it in part. Trial of this case was conducted on October 18, 2017, in Washington, D.C. Mr. Bongam represented himself, 23 and respondent was represented by Trevor B. Maddison. We 24 find the following facts: 25 FINDINGS BM (973)406-2250|operationsøescrRaets.net|www.escribers.net Mr. Bongam resided in Washington D.C. when he 4 filed the petition in this suit. (Stip. 4.) Mr. Bongam's role at Dynamic Visions Mr. Bongam formed Dynamic Visions Inc. ("Dynamic") and from 2005 through 2008 served as its chief executive officer. He had signatory authority over its accounts, which included accounts payable, payroll, and billing. (Ex. 31-R.) Payroll tax delinquencies at Dynamic For the calendar quarters ending December 2005 through March 2008, Dynamic failed to fully pay its employment taxes, i.e., both the employer's share of such 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 taxes and the employees' share which Dynamic should have 14 withheld from employees' wages and paid over to the IRS. 15 16 17 (Exs. 8-R, 31-R). That withholding, referred to as a "trust fund", is relevant to this suit. Dynamic did make payments toward payroll taxes, 18 which the IRS duly credited to Dynamic's payroll tax 19 20 21 accounts (Ex. 31-R, Form 4183), but IRS records indicate that by March 2008, Dynamic's trust fund taxes that had not been paid over totaled almost $780,000. (Id.; Ex. 8- 22 R.) At trial, Mr. Bongam asserted that Dynamic had, in 23 24 fact, paid those trust fund taxes. He proffered photocopies of checks to the IRS totaling about $1.2 25 million, but the IRS's records account for those payments (973)406-2250|operations@eserbersnet|www.escribersaet 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and still show unpaid balances of the trust fund liabilities. In mid-2008, the IRS seized Dynamic's bank accounts and levied on Medicare payments that were due to Dynamic. Mr. Bongam asserts that this collection activity resulted in Dynamic's inability to pay the taxes it owed and in Dynamic's going out of business. (Ex. 6-J). In this case we do not review the IRS's collection activity as to Dynamic, so we do not attempt to determine whether 10 there was any abuse of discretion in the collection of 11 Dynamic's Federal tax liabilities. 12 13 14 15 An IRS agent testified that the seizures and levies in May 2008 totaled approximately $900,000 and that they were applied to Dynamics' employment tax liabilities for 2004 (for which there is no corresponding TFRP 16 liability at issue here) and for all four quarters of 17 18 2005, for which only the fourth quarter has a corresponding TFRP liability at issue here. We have no 19 reason to assume that any portion of that recovery was or 20 21 22 should have been allocated to trust fund taxes at issue. One Stop Medical Supplies Inc. In about 2009, Mr. Bongam invested in and became 23 a shareholder and the vice president of One Stop Medical 24 Supplies Inc. ("One Stop"). (Ex. 2-J). The only employee 25 of One Stop was Mr. Augustine Forkwar. As part of Mr. (973)406-2250|operationseescrbers.net|wwwesaibers.net 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bongab's agreement to invest in the company, Mr. Bongam obtained co-signatory authority over its SunTrust bank account. (Stip. 9.) Mr. Bongam convincingly testified that he did not have operational authority at One Stop, only co-signed the checks that Mr. Forkwar had already signed, did not participate in the business's operations in any other substantive capacity, and was not aware that Mr. Forkwar failed to pay One Stop's payroll taxes. For the calendar quarters ending in June 2009 through December 10 2009, One Stop failed to pay its employment taxes. By 11 December 2009, the total trust funds not paid totaled 12 about $23, 000. (Ex. 9-R) . 13 Assessment of the trust fund recovery penalty 14 On June 24, 2008, the IRS sent Mr. Bongam a 15 Letter 1153 and corresponding Form 2751 ("Proposed 16 Assessment of Trust Fund Recovery Penalty") for tax 17 periods of Dynamic through March 2008, advising Mr. Bongam 18 that he had "the right to appeal or protest this action" 19 before IRS Appeals. (Ex. 8-R.) We find that Mr. Bongam 20 did receive the letter, but he did not dispute the matter 21 before IRS Appeals. In April 2009, the IRS assessed the 22 TFRP against Mr. Bongam for the unpaid trust funds of 23 Dynamic for the calendar quarters ending March 2008, in an 24 amount of approximately $780,000. (Ex. 4-J, p. 3; 25 Ex. 8-R.) (973) 406-2250 j operations0escribersmet |emyr.escn'bers.net On September 29, 2011, the IRS sent Mr. Bongam a 7 Letter 1153 and corresponding Form 2751 ("Proposed Assessment of Trust Fund Recovery Penalty") for liabilities arising from One Stop for tax periods in 2009. (E.x. 8-R.) We find that Mr. Bongam did not receive this letter. On April 2, 2012, the IRS assessed the TFRP against Mr. Bongam for One Stop's unpaid trust funds for three calendar quarters ending in December 2009 in an amount no greater than about $23,000. (Ex. 4-J, p. 3; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ex. 9-R.) 11 12 IRS collection action On October 1, 2013, the IRS issued Mr. Bongam a 13 Letter 3172, "Notice of Federal Tax Lien and Right to a 14 Hearing Under § 6320" ("NFTL") (Ex. 4-J), informing Mr. 15 16 17 18 Bongam that the IRS filed a lien with respect to the trust fund liabilities assessed against him. (Stip. 11). The NFTL did not state what employer or employers were involved, but from the taxable periods given on the 19 notice, we now know that it related to both Dynamic and 20 One Stop. 21 22 The original CDP hearing on October 13, 2013, Mr. Bongam timely requested 23 a CDP hearing with the IRS Office of Appeals by filing a 24 Form 12153, "Request for a Collection Due Process ... 25 Hearing" (Ex. 5-J). (Stip. 12) On his request, Mr. (973)406-2250|operationseescribers.net|www.escribers.net 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bongam indicated that he could not pay the balance and explained that "I was working for Dynamic Visions, a corporation. The IRS ran the company out of business by clearing every single dollar that was in the company account." (Ex. 5-J.) He also attempted to dispute the underlying liability through an attached handwritten note which stated: "I worked in Dynamic Vision as the CEO. All taxes were paid in and .the accountant late Newbery was filing the taxes until he past (sic) away, and then some 10 mixed (sic) up came up in the filing. But for my part all 11 12 taxes filed and paid until the business was closed." The first CDP hearing officer failed to observe 13 that Mr. Bongam's first Letter 1153, dated in June of 2008 14 (Ex. 8-R) could not have provided Mr. Bongam with the 15 opportunity to dispute the penalties related to One Stop's 16 17 2009 liabilities and that the second Letter 1153, mailed in 2011 (Ex. 9-R) lacked the certified mail response card, 18 which would have verified or confirmed its delivery. 19 Upon conclusion of the original CDP hearing, IRS 20 Appeals issued its first NOD on April 30, 2014 (Ex. 1-J), 21 incorrectly finding that petitioner had a prior 22 opportunity to dispute all of the liabilities for all 23 periods stated in the NFTL, did not grant him any 24 collection alternative, and upheld the IRS's lien filing. 25 The original NOD was returned to the IRS as undeliverable. (973)406-2250|operationseescrbers.net|www.escríbers.net The IRS re-mailed the original NOD to petitioner on August 9 4, 2014. Tax Court petition On August 22, 2014, Mr. Bongam mailed his petition to this Court and asked this Court to review the original NOD. The IRS subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On February 11, 2016, we ruled that we have jurisdiction based on Mr. Bongam's petition having been filed less than 30 days after the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 proper mailing of the original NOD. Bongam v. 11 Commissioner, 146 T.C. 52 (2016). 12 13 The Commissioner's attorneys then perceived that IRS Appeals, in determining at the original CDP hearing 14 whether Mr. Bongam had had a prior opportunity to 15 16 challenge the liabilities, had misconstrued the Letters 1153. Counsel filed a motion for remand for the purpose 17 of allowing any liability challenge to which Mr. Bongam 18 19 was entitled. We granted the Commissioner's motion and ordered that IRS Appeals offer Mr. Bongam a supplemental 20 administrative hearing. 21 Supplemental CDP hearing 22 23 IRS Appeals sent Mr. Bongam a letter dated March 1, 2017, which stated that Mr. Bongam was allowed to 24 dispute the underlying liability for One Stop during the 25 second CDP hearing, explained that the first Appeals (973)406-2250|operationsgescrbetsmet|www.escnbers.net 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 officer had denied his request for a collection alternative (i.e., "currently not collectible" ("CNC") status) since he failed to provide that financial information, and requested such financial information for the second CDP hearing. (Ex. 29-R.) In his facsimile dated March 23, 2017 (Ex. 6-J), Mr. Bongam disputed his underlying liability as to TRFP attributable to trust fund taxes of Dynamic and alleged that the IRS's seizure of Dynamic's bank accounts in 2008 had resulted in Dynamic's going out of business. He did not provide the Appeals officer with any financial information about himself. As to One Stop, Mr. Bongam 13 stated that "you know my position on that file. I already 14 put it to you at that time." We construe that statement 15 16 to reiterate a dispute as to his underlying liability as to TRFP attributable to trust fund taxes of One Stop. 17 Supplemental NOD and trial 18 19 20 21 22 23 On April 19, 2017, IRS Appeals issued to Mr. Bongam the supplemental NOD (Ex. 7-J), sustaining the lien filing for all the TFRP liabilities (i.e., both those assessed for trust fund taxes of Dynamic, and those assessed for trust fund taxes of One Stop). The supplemental NOD stated (erroneously, we conclude) that 24 during the second CDP hearing Mr. Bongam failed to dispute 25 the One Stop liabilities. The supplemental NOD determined EM (973)406-2250|operationseescribersmet|wwwascribersnet 11 that the TFRP penalty was properly assessed as to the trust fund taxes for both One Stop and Dynamic. The supplemental NOD determined that Mr. Bongam's failure to provide financial information prevented Appeals from determining his ability to pay, thus precluding any entitlement to the CNC status he requested in the original CDP hearing. (Stips. 24-27, Ex. 7-J). I. General principles OPINION A. "Collection Due Process" review When a taxpayer fails to pay any Federal income tax liability after demand, section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of the United States on all the property of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 delinquent taxpayer, and section 6323 authorizes the IRS 15 to file notice of that lien. However, the IRS must 16 provide written notice of a tax lien filing to the 17 18 taxpayer within five business days. After receiving such a notice, the taxpayer may request an administrative 19 hearing before Appeals. Sec. 6320(a)(3)(B), (b)(1). 20 Administrative review 1s carried out by way of a hearing 21 before IRS Appeals pursuant to section 6330(b) and (c); 22 and, if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the outcome 23 there, he can petition the Tax Court for review under 24 section 6330(d), as Mr. Bongam has done. 25 The pertinent procedures for the agency-level BEIEll (973) 406-2 250 ] operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 12 CDP hearing are set forth in section 6330(c): First, the appeals officer must obtain verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. Sec. 6330(c)(1). Mr. Bongam does not contend that IRS Appeals failed to obtain the verification required by section 6330(c)(1). Second, the taxpayer may "raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax" or the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lien, including challenges to the appropriateness of the 11 collection action and offers of collection alternatives. 12 13 See sec. 6320(c), 6330(c)(2)(A). Mr. Bongam alleges that he proposed a collection alternative, as discussed in part 14 IV. 15 16 Third, the taxpayer may contest the existence and amount of the underlying tax liability, but only if he 17 did not have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability. 18 19 20 21 22 Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Mr. Bongam advances two arguments regarding his TFRP liability and we discuss his under.lying liability below in parts II and III. Fourth, at the CDP hearing Appeals is to consider "whether any proposed collection action [here, 23 the filing of the NFTL] balances the need for the 24 efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern 25 of the person that any collection action be no more (973)406-2250|operationseesubers.netjwww.esaibers.net intrusive than necessary." Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C). The filing of a notice of lien is often the least intrusive means of collection. Mr. Bongam has alleged no failure of such balancing, and none is apparent, so we do not address 13 this issue distinctly. B. Trust fund taxes and penalties An employer is liable to pay the employer's own portion of social security tax (sec. 3111), its employees' portion of social security tax (sec. 3101), which the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 employer is required to withhold from its employees' wages 11 12 13 14 15 (sec. 3102), and the employee's income tax that the employer is likewise required to withhold from its employees' wages (sec. 3402). That is, in addition to being required to pay to the IRS their own income taxes, and in addition to being required to deposit with the IRS 16 their own employer portions of social security taxes, 17 Dynamic and One Stop were also required to withhold and 18 pay over to the IRS their employees' portions of social 19 security tax and income tax. See secs. 3102, 3402, 3403. 20 The social security tax and income tax that are required 21 22 23 24 25 to be withheld from employees' wages are held by the employer in trust for the United States, see sec. 7501(a), and are therefore known as "trust fund" taxes. The withheld tax held in trust is sometimes a temptation to an employer that is in financial difficulty. Cribers (973)406-2250|operationseescribers.net|wwwescribers.net 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The employer may be inclined to regard many of its expenses as more urgent than payroll taxes and to use the money for other purposes. In so doing, it makes the Government, in effect, an unwitting and unwilling investor in the employer's troubled business. The Government's eventual receipt of the trust fund is now put at great risk, even though in its dealings with the employees the Government must honor the wi·thholding. That is, when the employer issues a Form W-2 to the employee showing tax 10 withholding, the employee receives credit on his tax 11 12 13 14 15 return for the tax withheld, even if it is never paid over to the Government. To discourage such misuse of the trust fund taxes, Section 6672(a) imposes "a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax ... not accounted for and paid 16 over." This penalty is imposed on any "person required to 17 collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any" trust 18 19 fund taxes "who willfully fails" to do so. Such persons are often referred to in the case law as "responsible 20 persons." See Slodov v. United States, 436 U.S. 238 21 22 23 24 (1978). Even though a responsible person's liability for the 6672 penalty is distinct from the employer's liability for the tax, the penalty is, in fact, a means of 25 collecting the tax. The IRS does not use the penalty to (973)406-2250|operations©escribersnet|wwwescnbersnet 15 collect the trust fund taxes more than once. See United States v. Sotello, 436 U.S. 278, 279 n.12 (1978). Thus, if the employer pays the trust fund taxes (or a portion of them) after the TFRP has been assessed against a responsible officer, then the TFRP liability should be reduced to that extent. C. Standard of review Where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the taxpayer is entitled to de novo review. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). In 11 12 13 14 that context, petitioner has the burden of proof. Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-168; Rule 142(a). As to issues other than the underlying liability (i.e., collection issues), we review IRS Appeals' 15 determination for abuse of discretion. Goza, 114 T.C. at 16 182. That is, we decide whether the determination was 17 arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 law. See Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005), aff'd, 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006). II. Dynamic TFRP liability A. Challenge as to underlying liability As we noted above, a person may challenge the "underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person ... did not ... have an opportunity to dispute such tax 25 liability." See section 6330(c)(2)(B). Letter 1153 gives BEElli 73)406-2250|operations@escribers.net]vmw.escribers.net such an "opportunity" to a responsible person, so that he may not make a later challenge in a CDP hearing, see Thompson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-87, and the IRS issued such a letter about Dynamic's trust fund taxes to 16 Mr. Bongam. At trial, Mr. Bongam testified that the IRS failed to give him that opportunity because (he testified) he did not receive the Letter 1153, dated June 24, 2008, and the signature that appears on the certified mail response card is not his signature. His testimony did not convince us. He made similar denials of ever having received other communications from the IRS that, in fact, he had attached to his own earlier filings in this case. It is clear that someone at Mr. Bongam's address received and signed for the Letter 1153. The signature appears to us to be the same as what we see on other papers in the court record of this case and in the trial record that Mr. Bongam plainly signed. We find that he received and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 signed for the Letter 1153 as to the Dynamic trust fund 20 taxes. He is therefore not entitled to challenge his liability. 21 22 That challenge, even if we were to address it, 23 was not effectual. With respect to Dynamic, Mr. Bongam 24 met the two preconditions for TFRP liability -- 25 responsibility for paying over the tax, and willfulness in h Cribers (973)406-2250|operationseescribers.net|www.escribersmet 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 failing to do so. Through his own admission, he was a person responsible to collect -- and he alleged that he had paid -- the employment taxes. Mr. Bongam's contentions might be construed as a defense against "wi11fulness", if he is contending that the IRS's seizure of funds from Dynamic's banks and from Medicare made him unable to pay the liabilities. Cf. McCarty v. United States, 437 F.2d 961, 969 (Ct. Cl. 1971) (lack of willfulness where Government had "complete domination and control" of employer funds). However, Mr. Bongam alleges (without documentation) that the seizures 12 occurred in May of 2008, whereas the final period for 13 which he was assessed TFRP as to Dynamic is the quarter 14 15 ending March 31, 2008. Even by his own account, Dynamic's trust fund taxes relevant here were already due well 16 before the IRS seized any of Dynamic's funds. IRS levies 17 made thereafter would not affect Mr. Bongam's 18 19 responsibility and willfulness during the periods at issue. Mr. Bongam seemed to conceive of this current case 20 as an occasion for him to demand an accounting by the IRS 21 of its collection of Dynamic's money and its application 22 of that money to Dynamic's liabilities. But Dynamic is 23 not a party to the present case, and the propriety of IRS 24 activity to collect Dynamic's liabilities is not at issue 25 here. EM (973)406-2250|operations@escrbers.net j www.esenbers.net 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 B. Challenge as to payment of trust fund taxes Mr. Bongam alleges that the IRS should not be allowed to collect the TFRP attributable to Dynamic's trust fund taxes because, he says, Dynamic timely paid its trust fund taxes. Because of a prior "opportunity", Mr. Bongam was barred from asserting this as a challenge to his TFRP liability in the CDP hearing (and is so barred here). However, section 6330(c)(2) (A) states generally that the CDP petitioner "may raise ... any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax" (without restriction according to any prior "opportunity"), and for present purposes we 12 construe it broadly. Because of the close relation of the 13 14 15 16 employer's liability for the trust fund taxes and the responsible person's liability for the TFRP, and because TFRP liability must be reduced by any employer payment of the trust fund taxes, we assume that Mr. Bongam's 17 allegation is akin to a taxpayer's allegation that the 18 19 liability that the IRS is attempting to collect is not an "unpaid tax" for purposes of section 6330(c). In the 20 alternative, a failure to credit a TFRP account with an 21 employer's payments of the trust funds might be a failure 22 of "verification" under section 6330(c)(1). 23 In any event, Mr. Bongam failed to prove that 24 Dynamic paid the trust fund taxes for which the IRS 25 assessed TFRP against Mr. Bongam. He attempted to support (973)406-2250|operations@escribers.net jwwwascribers.net 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 the assertion with copies of numerous checks made payable to the IRS (or to a bank in favor of the IRS) in payment of Dynamic's taxes. (Exs. 32-P through 35-P.) However, the checks themselves do not specify on the "For" line a tax or taxable period to which they relate. (Most give only Dynamic's social security number and nothing more; some say "Federal tax"; only one includes the word "withholding".) Some (but not all) are accompanied by a coupon stating their purpose, but no coupon specifies trust fund taxes or "withholding". (Some coupons identify Form 941 (the employment tax return) and a calendar 12 quarter; some coupons identify a quarter only and no 13 14 15 indication of the type of liability.) Mr. Bongam's· own tally of these amounts includes amounts with no corresponding checks and with apparent errors or 16 duplication. 17 However, for the first three quarters at issue, 18 Mr. Bongam's evidence is sufficiently comprehensible that 19 we are able to say that, for the payments that Mr. Bongam 20 identified, the IRS did give Dynamic full credit toward 21 22 its payroll taxes, allocating some of the payments to trust fund taxes in particular. See Ex. 31-R, Form 4183. 23 The TFRP amounts assessed against Mr. Bongam for those 24 quarters are the amounts of trust fund taxes left unpaid 25 after the application of the payments that Mr. Bongam (973)406-2250|operationseescribers.net|wwwescribers.net 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 proffered. Subsequent quarters are more difficult to analyze, because of the garbled state of Mr. Bongam's evidence and contentions. But even as to those subsequent quarters, we can say that the IRS gave Dynamic credit for payments that total no less than the amounts that Mr. Bongam substantiated with photocopies of checks that can be allocated to any specific employment tax period that is at issue here. Mr. Bongam did not prove that Dynamic's trust fund taxes have been paid in amounts greater than what was 12 already accounted for in the TFRP assessments made against 13 14 15 him. III. One Stop TFRP liability The Commissioner now concedes that Mr. Bongam 16 .was entitled to dispute the underlying liability for One 17 Stop during the second CDP hearing. With respect to One 18 Stop, the two preconditions for liability -- 19 20 responsibility for paying over the tax, and willfulness in failing to do so -- are not met in Mr. Bongam's case. Mr. 21 Bongam convincingly testified that he was not the person 22 responsible to collect and pay over the trust fund tax for 23 One Stop, and this admission is corroborated by evidence 24 and his own testimony that he only co-signed checks that 25 were brought to him by the co-owner, manager, and sole (973)406-2250|operations@escribers.net|www.esenbers.net employee of the business. (Stips. 7-10.) Therefore, we hold that Mr. Bongam is not liable for the TFRP as to One Stop, and that the determination of IRS Appeals as to the 21 tax periods in 2009 is not sustained. IV. Collection Alternative Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2) (A), we review IRS Appeals' denial of a collection alternative to Mr. Bongam for an abuse of discretion, Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000) -- that is, whether the determinations were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or 11 12 law. See Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005), aff'd. 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006); Sego v. 13 Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). 14 15 16 17 At some point, Mr. Bongam apparently expressed interest in being put into CNC status; but at trial Mr. Bongam indicated that he was unsure whether he had requested any collection alternative in .the second 18 hearing. The IRS letter dated March 1, 2017, indicates 19 20 that the IRS Appeals officer solicited financial information so that it could consider whether Mr. Bongam 21 qualified for such a collection alternative. (Ex. 29-R). 22 The supplemental NOD specifically states, "Based upon the 23 failure to provide the requested financial information, 24 and the lack of other collection resolutions, Collection 25 is sustained in the lien filing." (Ex. 7-J.) The record (973)406-2250|operationspescrbersnet|wwwasaibers.net 22 indicates, and Mr. Bongam did not dispute at trial, that he failed to provide financial information to the IRS through a Form 433A (or any other form) during the CDP hearing. (Exs. 6-J, 7-J.) Therefore, we find that the IRS did not abuse its discretion when it did not grant Mr. Bongam a collection alternative. As a result of the foregoing, we hold that the IRS's lien is sustained as to Mr. Bongam's TFRP arising from Dynamic and is not sustained as to his TFRP arising from One Stop. An appropriate order and decision will be issued. This concludes the Court's oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 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 ) cribers (973) 406 2250| operations®escribers.net| www.escribers.net