TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ken Ashford Knights
Docket Number: 24599-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/17/2010
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 KEN ASHFORD KNIGHTS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 24Ê99-09S. Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to the pages of the transcript the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at findings Petitioner and to respondent a copy of of Miami, Florida, on November 3, 2010, containing his oral of the trial. fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of 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. November 17, 2010 SERVED NOV 2 3 2019 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 Judge Joseph Robert Goeke Ken Ashford Knights v. Commissioner Docket No. 24599-09S November 3, 2010 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to Section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other Court, and as previously stated, this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Sections 6320(c) and 6330(b) of the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period in question. Section references after this are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period in question, and rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court reviews this case pursuant to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 Respondent's motion for summary judgment made under Rule 121. The Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate in this case because there are no facts in dispute. In June 2005, Respondent sent to the Petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency regarding income taxes owed for 2004. Petitioner did not timely petition the Tax Court regarding the notice of deficiency, and the tax liability asserted in the notice, along with interest, was assessed. In February 2009, Petitioner was sent a notice of federal tax lien filing and the right to a hearing under IRC Section 6320. This notice advised the Petitioner that a notice of federal tax lien had been filed on February 12th, 2009, for unpaid 2004 tax liabilities, and also advised the Petitioner that he could receive a hearing before a settlement officer of the Internal . Revenue Service relative to Respondent's collection action. On March 23rd, 2009, the Petitioner submitted a Form 12153, Request for Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. On his Form 12153, Petitioner requested an installment agreement, and also requested that the tax lien be discharged. Petitioner did not challenge the underlying tax 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 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 liability during the collection and due process hearing. Petitioner's failure to raise the underlying tax liability results in a restriction upon his ability to raise that liability before this court. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107 (2007). After receiving Petitioner's request for a hearing, the settlement officer requested that the Petitioner provide a collection information statement and signed income tax returns for the years 2006 through 2008. Petitioner did not provide this information. On September 17th, 2009, the settlement officer issued to Petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action under Section 6320 and/or 6330. On October 16th, 2009,¯ Petitioner filed a timely petition in this court. Because the underlying tax liability was not at issue in this case, the Court reviews the settlement officer's determination under an abuse of discretion standard. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). Petitioner did not raise the underlying tax liability in the petition he filed in this case. This we find based upon the administrative record information submitted in support of Respondent's motion for summary judgment, that the settlement 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 officer did not abuse discretion in not considering collection alternatives because the Petitioner failed to provide the necessary information to allow the settlement officer to consider alternatives. We also note that the Petitioner failed to respond to Respondent's motion for summary judgment as ordered by the Court, and failed to appear when this case was scheduled for a hearing on Monday, November 1st, 2010. Pursuant to Section 6330(c) (3), the determination of the settlement officer must take into consideration the verification that.the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, any issues raised by the taxpayer, and the question of whether any proposed collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer that any collection be no more intrusive than is necessary. Based upon the information submitted and attached to Respondent's motion for summary judgment, we find that the settlement officer fully considered these matters, and properly weighed the legitimate concerns of the taxpayer with the need for Respondent to collect the underlying tax liabilities, and we further find that the settlement officer fully 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 7 complied with the requirements of Section 6330 (c) (3) , and that there was no abuse of discretion of this case . Theref ore , we grant Respondent ' s mot ion f or summary judgment, and a decide will be entered for the Respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion:in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:47 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888