TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Paul Lanoie, Jr.
Docket Number: 29825-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/25/2011
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 PAUL LANOIE , JR . , Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 29825-09L. 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 to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Halpern at Albuquerque, New Mexico on February 15, 2011, containing his oral conclusion of trial. the trial of the pages of the above case before Judge James S. findings of fact and opinion rendered at the In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) James S. Halpern Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 25, 2011 $ERVED MAR - 3 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 Judge James S. Halpern February 15, 2011 Paul Lanoie, Jr. v. Commissioner Docket No. 29825-09L 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. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner resided in New Mexico at the time he filed the petition and the amended petition. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. This case is before the Court pursuant to an amended petition filed under section 6330(d) for review of a determination made by respondent's office of Appeals (Appeals). The parties have stipulated certain facts. The stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference. We have rounded dollar amounts to the 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 nearest dollar. By Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated January 29, 2009 (the notice) , Appeals determined that it was appropriate to proceed by lien and by levy to collect petitioner's 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003 Federal income tax liabilities. By the amended petition, petitioner assigned error to the notice on the ground that the section 6330 hearing accorded petitioner by Appeals was unfair and biased. At trial the Court inquired of petitioner the nature of Appeals' s error in determining to proceed with collection. Petitioner believes that settlement officer Joann Mares, who conducted the hearing, erred in failing to consider petitioner's underlying liabilities for tax and penalties for the years in issue. Petitioner also believes that respondent has not established that petitioner received notices of deficiency in tax for each of those years. Attachments to the stipulation of facts show the following. For 1999, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $10,742, and penalties of $4,619 and $516, under sections 6651(a) (1) and 6654(a), respectively. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 For 2000, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $17,285, and penalties of $6,395 and $930 under sections 6651(a) (1) and 6654(a), respectively. For 2001, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $5,536, and penalties of $1,246, $219, and $996 under sections 6651(a) (1), 6654(a), and 6651(a) (2), respectively. For 2003, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $6,296, and penalties of $1,416, $162, and $346 under sections 6651(a) (1), 6654(a), and 6651(a) (2), respectively. A taxpayer may challenge at a section 6330 hearing his underlying liability for tax only if he did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute his liability. See sec. 6330(c) (2) (B). Respondent conceded at trial that petitioner did not receive notices of deficiency for 1999 and 2002. And while there is a dispute as to whether he received the notice of deficiency for 2001 and 2003, at trial we offered petitioner the opportunity to show that his underlying liabilities for the years in issue was any less than determined by respondent. Petitioner would not do so. Indeed, he 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 refused to inform us why he disagreed with respondent's determinations, demanding that the case be remanded to appeals for the hearing he said he was wrongfully denied. In Lun sford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, ¿£5# 189 (2001), we stated: "of course, there may be cases, where taxpayers were not given a proper opportunity for an Appeals hearing, where it will be appropriate for this Court to require that an Appeals hearing be held." This is not one of those cases. It is not necessary, nor would it be productive, to remand this case to Appeals to consider petitioner's arguments that respondent's determination of deficiencies is incorrect. The record contains details of information received by the IRS showing that petitioner received items of gross income such as substantial amounts of wages and nonemployee compensation during the years in issue. We take petitioner's refusal even to inform us of his arguments as evidence that petitioner has no valid arguments and is a tax protester bent on nothing but delaying the inevitable determination that he has unpaid tax liabilities for the years in issue. Petitioner has raised no issue other than 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 his underlying liabilities for tax. There is no evidence whatsoever that Appeals abused its discretion in determining to proceed with collection of petitioner's tax liabilities, as set forth in the notice, and we shall sustain the notice. We shall enter an order and decision ordering and deciding that respondent may proceed with collection for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2003. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:56 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888