TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Daniel P. Murphy
Docket Number: 16173-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/09/2008
Pages: 7

mv- 1014-' UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 DANIEL P . MURPHY, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 16173-07S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . 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 to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings in the above case before Judge Laurence J . Whalen at Indianapolis, Indiana, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered on November 4, 2008 . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered . (Signed) Laurence J . Whalen Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . December 9, 2008 SERVED DEC 1 0 .E 3 1 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge Laurence J . Whalen 2 November 4, 200 8 3 Murphy v . Commissioner Docket No . 16173-07S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render oral 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case , and th e 6 following represents the Court' s oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . 8 This proceeding is a levy action that was brought 9 pursuant to Sections 6330(d) and 7463(f)(2) of th e 10 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended . This 11 proceeding was also brought pursuant to Rules 330 a third(A vh 12 334, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of 13 Practice and Procedure . 14 Hereinafter, all section numbers refer to the 15 Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all rul e 16 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 17 Procedure . 18 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 19 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Interna l 20 Revenue Code, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court 21 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 22 Petitioner, Daniel P . Murphy, represented himself 23 in this proceeding . Diane L . Worland, attorney-at-law, 24 appeared on behalf of the Respondent . 25 The issue in this case is whether the Settlement Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (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 Officer abused her discretion in issuing the Notice o f Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) unde r Section 6320 and/or 6330 on June 11, 2007, approving a levy with respect to Petitioner's taxable year 2005 . The 4 summary of Determination set forth in that Notice o f Determination states as follows : [q,,.tt3 The Office of Appeals has determined that th e proposed collection action is the most efficien t collection method at this point . A review of al l information available indicates that all legal an d procedural requirements have been followed . The decisio n made by Compliance to pursue the issuance of a levy i s appropriate . Collection alternatives are not currently a viable option . Compliance may issue a levy at thei r discretion . ' 1wD 4fAo 3 The facts necessary to decide Respondent's Motio n for Summary Judgment include the following : Prior t o October 17, 2006, Petitioner had entered into a n installment agreement to pay his 2005 income ta x liability . Petitioner missed at least one paymen t required under that agreement . Accordingly, on October 17, 2006, Respondent sen t to Petitioner a Final Notice - Notice of Intent to Lev y and Notice of Your Rights to a Hearing . On November 6 , 2006, Petitioner submitted a timely Request for a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 Collection Due Process Hearing . Petitioner made the 2 following explanation why he did not agree with th e 3 proposed levy : "I've been making payment but miss (sic) 4 one last month . I still plan to make my payments . " 5 After receiving Petitioner's request for a 6 hearing, the Settlement Officer sent a letter t o 7 Petitioner, dated March 28, 2007, scheduling a telephone 8 conference with him on May 3, 2007, at 9 :00 a .m . The 9 letter also asks Petitioner to provide : (1) a completed 10 Collection Information Statement (Form 433-A), and (2) a 11 new Form W-4 signed by your employer . 12 On May 3, 2007, Petitioner was not available when 13 the Settlement Officer called him . Therefore, she sent a 14 second letter to him documenting that he was no t 15 available when she called, and asking him to submit the 16 requested information within 14 days . 17 Later on May 3, 2007, Petitioner telephoned the 18 Settlement Officer and she conducted the CDP hearing over 19 the telephone . During that conference, the Settlemen t 20 Officer told Petitioner that he would receive a second 21 letter asking for information and he was to provide the 22 information by . May 17, 2007 . 23 Attached to the Notice of Determination issued on 24 March 19, 2007, is a document entitled, "Attachment to 25 Determination Letter" in which the Settlement Officer Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 describes her telephone conference with Petitioner as 2 follows : 3 ['quok] Relevant Issues Presented by the Taxpaye r 4 On May 3, 2007, the Appeals settlement officer 5 assigned to the case received a called [sic] from th e 6 taxpayer at the scheduled time to conduct the taxpayer's 7 requested Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing . Th e 8 taxpayer was advised that per review of the case file the 9 IRS followed all administrative procedures . The 10 settlement officer advised the taxpayer a second letter 11 had been mailed to him, and he was to provide al l 12 information with supporting documentation by 5/17/2007 . 13 The taxpayer did not respond . No Collection alternative 14 was reached . [ Sftj O°t3 15 According to the Attachment, "The taxpayer was 16 advised when the information was received he would be 17 informed of a collection alternative ." The Attachmen t 18 also stated that : Petitioner did not dispute the amo'u-nt 19 of the liability ; he did not say why the levy would e A 20 inappropriate, or why it would not facilitate collection 21 of the outstanding liability ; he did not offer an y 22 collection alternative ; and, he raised no other issues . 23 Petitioner never provided the requested information to 24 the Appeals Officer . 25 Petitioner's Amended Petition states, "I need to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 set-up a monthly payment plan ." In response, Respondent 2 filed a Motion for Summary Judgment . Petitioner did not 3 file an objection to Respondent's motion and he failed to 4 appear when case was called for hearing on Respondent' s 5 motion and for trial . 6 Standard of Review . If the taxpayer files a 7 petition for review in this Court, the standard that the 8 Court will use in reviewing the determination letter will 9 differ depending upon whether the underlying ta x 10 liabilities are at issue in the case . 11 In this case, Petitioner has raised no issue 12 concerning the correctness of the amounts of the tax 13 liabilities for 2005 . Also, Petitioner has raised no 14 dispute about whether the taxes were properly assessed . 15 Therefore, we review the Appeals Office' s 16 determination under the abuse of discretion standard . 17 See Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) ; Goza 18 v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 182 (2000) . This standard 19 requires the Court to decide whether the Appeals Office's 20 determination was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound 21 basis in fact or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 22 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) ; Keller v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 23 2006-166 ; Fowler v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-163 . 24 In applying this standard, we do not substitute our 25 judgment for that of the Appeals Office . See Sec . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 6330 ( d) ; Goza v . Commissioner , supra at 181-182 (2000) . 2 There is nothing in the record of this case that 3 causes me to question the reasonableness of th e 4 determination of the Settlement Officer and Petitioner 5 has not presented any reason . Accordingly , we hereby 6 sustain the action of the Settlement Officer in approving 7 a levy as an appropriate collection method fo r 8 Petitioner ' s 2005 tax . 9 In order to give effect to the foregoing, an Order 10 will be issued sustaining the Notice of Determination , 11 dated June 11, 2007, issued to Petitioner for 2005 . 12 This concludes the Court ' s oral findings of fact 13 and opinion in this case . 14 (Whereupon , at 5 :03 p . m ., the bench opinion in the 15 above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 16 17 // 18 // 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 / / 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888