TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Paula Landess
Docket Number: 20585-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/06/2009
Pages: 12

CrYY -~r, 161r UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C. 2021 7 PAULA LANDESS, Petitioner , V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,' Respondent . Docket No . 20585-07 L O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice an d .Procedure, it is r 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 Albuquerque, New Mexico on February 9, 2009, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the hearing on respondent's motion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . March 6,, 2009 SERVED Mar 09 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroup a 2 Docket Number 20585-07L February 9, 2009 3 Paula Landess V . Commissione r 4 The Court has decided to render ora l 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 . These oral findings of fact and opinion 8 shall not be relied upon as precedent in any othe r 9 case . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 11 authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 12 All section references .are to the Internal Revenue 13 Code, as amended and in effect for 2000 through and 14 including 2003, the years at issue, and all rul e 15 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 16 Procedure . 17 This is a collection review case involving 18 the filing of a notice of federal tax lien, as well as 19 a proposed levy to collect Petitioner's unpai d 20 liabilities for each of the years at issue . This 21 collection review matter is before the Court on 22 Respondent's motion for summary judgment filed on 23 December 31, 2008 . 24 There was no appearance by or on behalf of 25 Petitioner . Douglas Polsky appeared on behalf of Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 Respondent . 2 FINDINGS OF FACT 3 The record establishes, or the parties d o 4 not dispute, the following : Petitioner resided in New 5 Mexico at the time she filed the collection revie w 6 petition in this case . Petitioner failed to file a 7 return for any of the four years at issue . Respondent 8 prepared a substitute for return based upo n 9 information from third-party payors . Respondent also 10 issued a statutory notice of deficiency to Petitioner 11 for the years at issue, but Petitioner failed to file . 12 a petition timely . Respondent thereafter assessed the 13 tax liabilities for the years at issue along with the 14 additions to tax and interest . 15 Respondent issued to Petitioner a letter 16 entitled "Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and 17 Notice of Your Right to a Hearing" dated January 29, 18 2007, for the outstanding tax liabilities for each of 19 the years at issue, including the civil penalty for 20 filing a false withholdings certificate for 2004 , 21 which notice shall be referred to as the levy notice . 22 Respondent also mailed a letter t o 23 Petitioner entitled "Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing 24 and Your Rights to a Hearing" dated February 8, 2007, 25 for the outstanding liabilities for each of .the years Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 at issue, referred to as the lien notice . 2 Petitioner requested a hearing in response 3 to the lien notice and the levy notice . Petitioner 4 sought to contest the underlying tax liabilities at 5 issue, including the civil penalty assessed agains t 6 Petitioner for filing a false withholding certificate . 7 In her hearing request, Petitioner raised no 8 relevant issue, but merely parroted the language o f 9 Section 6330 . Specifically, she stated that, "I am 10 requesting a face-to-face collection due proces s 11 hearing in an appeals office closest to my place o f 12 residence, which I will be audio recording . There are 13 a few issues I wish to address Oat the hearing tha t 14 include, but are not limited to, a dispute over the 15 underlying tax liability, a challenge to th e 16 appropriateness of the levy action, and inquiry into 17 whether the IRS met the requirements of any applicable 18 laws and administrative procedures, and an offer o f 19 valid collection alternatives ." ' 20 The settlement officer assigned t o 21 Petitioner's hearing informed Petitioner that sh e 22 would be allowed a face-to-face conference on any non- 23 frivolous issue . Petitioner was told that she mus t 24 provide the non-frivolous issue in writing or by 25 calling the settlement officer within a date certain . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 Petitioner never responded, nor di d 2 Petitioner complete a Form 433-A entitled "Collection, 3 Information Statement" so that they could conside r 4 collection alternatives . The settlement officer also 5 explained that Petitioner needed to file delinquen t 6 tax returnsvfor 2004, 2005 and 2006, and that she 7 needed . to be current with estimated tax payments . 8 The letter also informed Petitioner that if 9 she failed to provide the necessary information, the 10 settlement officer would be unable to consider an y 11 collection alternatives and would issue a 12 determination notice based on the information in 13 Respondent's administrative file . 14 Without any additional information fro m 15 Petitioner, the settlement officer sustained the lien 16 action and the proposed collection action by levy in a 17 notice of determination concerning collection actions 18 under Section 6320 and/or 6330 dated August 9, 2007 . 19 As previously stated, Respondent filed a 20 summary judgment motion . Petitioner failed to appear 21 at the hearing on Respondent's motion, assertin g 22 instead that no trial should be held, as the Court's 23 review should be limited to the administrative record, 24 relying on Robinette v . Commissioner , 439 F .3d 45 5 25 (8th Circuit 2006) reversing 123 T .C . 85 (2004) . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 2 The Court finds Petitioner's reliance o n Robinette misplaced . The Court filed Petitioner's 3 objection .to Respondent's motion and also file d 4 another document entitled "Petitioner's Statement" as 5 a status report . Nothing in the objection or status 6 report is relevant to the issue whether Responden t 7 abused his discretion in sustaining the collection 8 action regarding all the years at issue . 9 OPINION 10 We are asked to decide whether to grant 11 summary judgment . Summary judgment is intended to 12 expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and 13 expensive trials . See, e .g ., FPL Group, Inc . v . 14 Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 74 (2001) . 15 A motion for summary judgment will b e 16 granted if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, 17 depositions, admissions, and other acceptabl e 18 materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show 19 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 20 and that a decision may be rendered as a matter o f 21 law . See Rule 121(b) ; Electric Arts, Inc . v . 22 Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 (2002) . 23 The moving party has the burden of proving 24 that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that 25 it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law .- See , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 e .g ., Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 16 2 2 (2002) . 3 The party opposing summary judgment must set 4 forth specific facts that show that a genuine question 5 of material fact exists and may not rely merely o n 6 allegations or denials in the pleadings . Grant Creek 7 Water Works, Ltd . v . Commissioner , 91 T .C . 322, 32 5 8 (1988) ; Casanova Co . v . Commissioner , 87 T .C . 214, 217 9 (1986) . 10 Standard of review . We begin with the 11 standard of review . Where the validity of th e 12 underlying tax liability is properly at issue, th e 13 Court will review the matter on a de novo basis . Sego 14 v . Commissioner ,,114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) . Where, as~ 15 in Ll~l the case here , the validity of the underlying 60 16 tax liability is not properly placed at issue, th e 17 Court will review Respondent's determination for abuse 18 of discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , supra ; Goza v . 19 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 (2000) . 20 We must decide whether Respondent exercised 21 his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without 22 sound basis in fact or law . See Woodral v . 23 24 Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) ; Fargo v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-13 . 25 Based upon our examination of the entire Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 record before us, we find that Respondent did not 2 abuse his discretion in determining that th e 3 collection action should proceed with respect t o 4 Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for each of the years 5 at issue, as well as the civil penalty for filing a 6 false withholding certificate for 2004 . 7 Overview of Collection Proceedings . If any 8 person liable for federal tax liability neglects o r 9 refuses to make payment within 10 days of notice and 10 demand, the Commissioner is authorized to collect the 11 tax by levy on that person's property . See Sec . 12 6331(a) . 13 At least 30 days before enforcing collection 14 by levy on the person's property, the Secretary i s 15 obliged to provide the person with a final notice of 16 intent to levy, including notice of the administrative 17 appeals available to the person . See Sec . 6331(d) . 18 The person is entitled, upon request, to a n 19 administrative review hearing before Appeals . Sec . 20 6330(b)(1) . 21 If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or 22 she may raise at that hearing any relevant issue s 23 relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy . Sec . 24 633,(c)(2) . Relevant issues include any appropriate & 0 25 spousal defenses , challenges to the appropriateness o f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 collection, and possible alternative means o f 2 collections, such as an installment agreement or an 3 offer in compromise . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(A) . 4 After the hearing, the appeals officer i s 5 required to make a determination that addresses issues 6 the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of 7 applicable law and administrative procedures have been 8 met, and balances the need for the efficien t 9 collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the 10 person that any collection action be no more intrusive' 11 than necessary . Sec . 6330(c)(3)(C) . 12 The record reflects that the settlement 13 officer properly verified,that all the legal an d 14 procedural requirements have been met . The settlement 15 officer confirmed, using a transcript of Petitioner's 16 accounts, that assessments were properly made for each 17 of the years at issue, that appropriate and timely 18 notices were sent regarding the assessments, and that 19 Petitioner was properly informed of her rights with 20 respect to the combined lien action and proposed levy 21 action . 22 The record also reflects the Petitioner did 23 not raise any relevant issue, nor provide an y 24 financial information, or become compliant with her 25 delinquent filing and payment obligations . We have Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 frequently and consistently held that an officer does 2 not abuse any discretion if the taxpayer fails t o 3 submit the required and requested financia l 4 information . Sapp v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2006- 5 104 ; Newstat v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-208 . 6 Finally, the record reflects that th e 7 settlement officer properly balanced the need for 8 efficiency collection of taxes with Petitioner's 9 legitimate concern that any collection be no more 10 intrusive than necessary . 11 In this proceeding now before the Court, 12 Petitioner asserts nothing but frivolous and 13 groundless arguments . It is apparent from the entire 14 record that Petitioner instituted or maintained this 15 proceeding primarily, if not exclusively, as a protest 16 against the federal income tax system, and he r 17 proceeding in this Court is merely a continuation of 18 Petitioner's refusal to acknowledge and satisfy her 19 tax obligations . 20 We are convinced that no purpose would be 21 served in repeating all that has been said about her 22 frivolous and misguided arguments . We take thi s 23 opportunity to admonish Petitioner that the Court will 24 consider imposing a penalty against Petitioner under 25 Section 6673, if Petitioner returns to the Court and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 1 advances similar arguments in the future . 2 Section 6673 authorizes the Tax Court to 3 require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a 4 penalty up to $25,000 whenever it appears tha t 5 proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the 6 taxpayer primarily for delay, or that the taxpayer's 7 position in such proceedings is frivolous o r 8 groundless . 9 Petitioner has not asserted any spousal 10 defenses, or otherwise offered any additiona l 11 collection alternatives . See Sec . 6330(c)(2) . 12 Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded . 13 Rule 331 (b) (4) . 14 Petitioner has not presented any evidence or 15 persuasive arguments to convince us that Responden t 16 abused his discretion . We therefore conclude that the 17 settlement officer did not abuse his discretion i n 18 upholding Respondent's combined lien and proposed levy 19 action to collect from Petitioner outstanding ta x 20 liabilities for each of the years at issue, as well as 21 the civil penalty for 2004 for filing a fals e 22 withholding certificate . 23 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 24 entered for Respondent, and an appropriate order will 25 be issued sustaining the determinations set forth i n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 24 25 1 3 the notice of determination concerning collectio n actions under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated Augus t 9, 2007, upon which this case is based regarding the unpaid liabilities for the taxable years 2000 throug h and including 2003, as well as the civil penalty fo r 2004 . The order will also grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment . This concludes the Court's oral findings o f fact and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 3 :36 p .m ., the bench opinio n was concluded . ) / / / / / / / / / / / / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888