TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Jamison Hawes
Docket Number: 5180-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/08/2008
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 JAMISON HAWES, ) Petitioner, v . Docket No . 5180-07 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 trial of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Detroit, Michigan on June 24, 2008, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . July 8, 2008 SERVED JUL - 8 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa June 24, 2008 2 Jamison Hawes v . Commissioner Docket No . 5180-07L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 4 findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following 5 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 6 These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied 7 upon as precedent in any other case . 8 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 9 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . All 10 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code a s 11 amended and in effect for 2002, the year at issue, and all 12 Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 Procedure . 14 This is a collection review case involving the 15 filing of a notice of Federal tax levy to collec t 16 petitioner's unpaid liabilities for the taxable year 2002 . 17 This collection review matter is before the Court o n 18 respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on April 25, 19 2008 . 20 There was no appearance by or on behalf of 21 petitioner . Elizabeth Proctor appeared on behalf of 22 respondent . 23 FINDINGS OF FAC T 24 The record establishes or the parties do not 25 dispute the following : Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Petitioner resided in Michigan at the time he 2 filed the collection review petition in this case . 3 Petitioner failed to file a return for the year at issue . 4 Respondent prepared a substitute for return based upo n 5 information from third-party payors . Respondent also issued 6 a statutory notice of deficiency to petitioner for 2002 and 7 petitioner failed to file a petition timely as determined in 8 Docket Number 14011-04 . Respondent thereafter assessed the 9 tax liability for 2002 along with the additions to tax and 10 interest . 11 Respondent issued to petitioner a Letter 1058, 12 dated August 20, 2005, entitled "Final Notice-Notice o f 13 Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing," for 14 the outstanding tax liability for the year at issue . I n 15 response to the Levy Notice, petitioner requested a hearing . 16 In his hearing request petitioner raised no relevant issue 17 but merely parroted the language of section 6330 . 18 Specifically, he stated that "at the hearing he intends to 19 raise only issues that are relevant to the proposed levy 20 action . These issues include (but are not limited to) a 21 dispute over the underlying tax liability, a challenge to 22 the appropriateness of the levy action, an inquiry int o 23 whether or not the IRS met the requirements of any 24 applicable laws and administrative procedures, and an offer 25 of valid collection alternatives . " Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 The Settlement Officer assigned to petitioner's 2 hearing informed petitioner that he needed to complete a 3 Form 433-A, entitled "Collection Information Statement" so 4 that they could consider collection alternatives . Th e 5 Settlement Officer also explained that petitioner needed to 6 file delinquent tax returns for 2004 and 2005 and that h e 7 needed to be current with estimated tax payments . The 8 letter also informed petitioner that, if he failed t o 9 provide the necessary information, the Settlement Officer 10 would be unable to consider any collection alternatives and 11 would issue a determination notice based on the information 12 in respondent's administrative file . 13 Without any additional information fro m 14 petitioner, the Settlement Officer sustained the proposed 15 collection action by levy in Notice of Determinatio n 16 Concerning Collection Action(s) under Sections 6320 and/or 17 6330, dated February 1, 2007 . As previously stated , 18 respondent filed a summary judgment motion and petitioner 19 failed to file a response or objection . . 20 OPINION 21 We are asked to decide whether to grant summary 22 judgment . Summary judgment is intended to expedit e 23 litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials . See, 24 e .g ., FPL Group, Inc . v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 7 4 25 (2001) .° A motion for summary judgment will be granted if Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law . See 2 3 Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) ; Fargo v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-13 . Based upon ou r 4 examination of the entire record before us, we find tha t 5 respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that 6 the collection action should proceed with respect t o 7 petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 2002 . 8 Overview of Collection Proceedings . If any person 9 liable for Federal tax liability neglects or refuses to make 10 payment within ten days of notice and demand, th e 11 Commissioner is authorized to collect the tax by levy o n 12 that person's property . See sec . 6331(a) . At least 30 days 13 before enforcing collection by levy on the person' s 14 property, the Secretary is obliged to provide the person 15 with a final notice of intent to levy, including notice of 16 the administrative appeals available to the person . See 17 sec . 6331(d) . 18 The person is entitled, upon request, to an 19 administrative review hearing before Appeals . Sec . 20 6330(b)(1) . If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or she 21 may raise at that hearing any relevant issues relating to 22 the unpaid tax or the proposed levy . Sec . 6330(c)(2) . 23 Relevant issues include any appropriate spousal defenses, 24 challenges to the appropriateness of collection, and 25 possible alternative means of collection such as an Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise . Sec . 2 6330(c)(2)(A) . After the hearing, the Appeals officer is 3 required to make a determination that addresses issues the 4 taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements o f 5 applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, 6 and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes 7 with the legitimate concern of the person that an y 8 collection action be no more intrusive than necessary . Sec . 9 6330(c) (3) (C) . 10 The record reflects that the Settlement officer 11 properly verified that all the legal and procedura l 12 requirements have been met . The Settlement Officer 13 confirmed, using a transcript of petitioner's accounts, that 14 assessments were properly made for the year at issue, that 15 appropriate and timely notices were sent regarding th e 16 assessments, and that petitioner was properly informed of 17 his rights with respect to the proposed levy action . 18 The record also reflects that petitioner did not 19 raise any relevant issue nor provide any financial 20 information or become compliant with his delinquent filing 21 and payment obligations . We have frequently an d 22 consistently held that an officer does not abuse any 23 discretion if the taxpayer fails to submit the required and 24 requested financial information . Sapp v . Commissioner , T .C . 25 Memo . 2006-104 ; Newstat v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 208 . 2 Finally, the record reflects that the Settlement 3 Officer properly balanced the need for efficient collection 4 of taxes with petitioner's legitimate concern that any 5 collection be no more intrusive than necessary . 6 In this proceeding now before the Court , 7 petitioner asserts nothing but frivolous and groundless 8 arguments . It is apparent from the entire record that 9 petitioner instituted or maintained this proceedin g 10 primarily, if not exclusively, as a protest against th e 11 Federal income tax system and his proceeding in this Court 12 is merely a continuation of petitioner's refusal t o 13 acknowledge and satisfy his tax obligations . We ar e 14 convinced that no purpose would be served in repeating all 15 that has been said about his frivolous and misguide d 16 arguments . We take this opportunity to admonish petitioner 17 that the Court will consider imposing a penalty agains t 18 petitioner under section 6673 if petitioner returns to the 19 Court and advances similar arguments in the future . Section 20 6673 authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay 21 to the United States a penalty up to $25,000 whenever i t 22 appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained 23 by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's 24 position in such proceedings is frivolous and groundless . 25 Petitioner has not asserted any spousal defenses , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 10 1 or otherwise offered any collection alternatives . See sec . 2 6330(c)(2) . Accordingly, these issues are now deemed 3 conceded . Rule 331(b)(4) . 4 Petitioner has not presented any evidence o r 5 persuasive arguments to convince us that respondent abused 6 his discretion . We therefore conclude that the Settlement 7 Officer did not abuse his discretion in upholdin g 8 respondent's proposed levy action to collect from petitioner 9 outstanding tax liabilities for 2002 . 10 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered 11 for respondent and an appropriate order will be issue d 12 sustaining the determinations set forth in the Notice o f 13 Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 14 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 1, 2007, upon which this 15 case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilities for th e 16 taxable year 2002 . The order will also grant respondent's 17 motion for summary judgment . 18 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 19 and opinion in this case . 20 (Whereupon, at 10 :17 a .m ., the bench opinion in 21 the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 22 23 // 24 // 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888