TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Charlene Diane Navarre
Docket Number: 30177-07S
Judge: Paris
Opinion Type: summary
Filed: 05/04/2009
Pages: 5

CHARLENE DIANE NAVARRE, Pe itioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 30177- 07S . Fled May 4, 2009 . PARIS, Judge : This case was heard ursuant to th e provisions of section 74631 of the Intern 1 Revenue Code i n effect at the time the petition was file . Pursuant to section , 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by an y other court, and this opinion shall not .be treated as precedent 1 for any other case . .'Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code o f 1986, as amended . ii On December 18, 2007, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) for a tax liability of petitioner for 2004 . In_response to that notice , 11 ~ and pursuant to sections 6320 and 6330(d), petitioner timel y petitioned this Court for review of respondent's determination sustain ng a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) . The' issue for decision is whetherithe Appeals Office abused its discretion in upholding res .pondent's filing of a NFTL . Background On--J.May 23, 2007, respondent recorded a notice of Federa l .tax lien and levy for income tax due from petitioner for tax year a z 4 20'04-2 $-Kpetitioner timely requested a collection due proces s (CDP) hearing under section 6330(b) with respondent's Appeals Office . As a result of the hearing, the Appeals Office determined that the recording of the notice of Federal tax lie n was also determined that collection of the tax liability due by levy was no longer necessary because a collection alternative, reporting the account as currently not collectible, had'bee n reached . No offer-in-compromise was agreed to or offered b y 2Petitioner's residence will be affected if the filing of the NFTL is sustained . I 3 _ i petitioner during the CDP hearing . The ppeals Office's conclusions were memorializedin-the notice of determination . On December 28, 2007, petitioner , en residing in the Stat e of Michigan, filed a petition with thi s ourt requesting that-the I .Federal tax lien not be sustained . On 0 tober 22, 2008, . a . trial was held in Detroit, Michigan, . to deter m ne'whether the Appeals Office abused its discretion .. by :determin ng that the notice ofl,f Federal tax lien should be sustained . P titioner testified tha t she had equity in-her residence but con t sts sustaining th e Federal tax lien because the lien make s per "feel" 'as . if she does not "own [her] house anymore ."3 f . Tr . at 2 8 . a Discussion Under section 6321-, if a person li a ID he for a tax fails to :l pay it after demand, the unpaid amount, ncluding any interest fi, and civil penalties, becomes a lien in f vorrof the United .State "upon all .property and rights to propert whether real or . personal, belonging to such,,_person ." Th lien arises when the tax is assessed . Sec . 6322 . Section 63 3 . explains that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may file notice . of Federal tax ' lien to protect its lien against subsequ nt creditors an d purchasers of'the taxpayer's property . 3At trial, the Court tried several times, unsuccessfully, to, evoke from petitioner an argument or legal basis why the tax lien should not be sustained . This was the most cogent response the .; Court received . 4 - A taxpayer may appeal the filing of a notice of tax lien to the IRS_under section 6320 by requesting an administrative hearingto review the notice of Federal tax lien, . The taxpayer is,i.additionally afforded the opportunity for, judicial review of a determination sustaining the . notice of :.Federal tax lien in the U .S . Tax, Court pursuant to section 6330(d) .' Petitioner . has chosento seek judicial review of respondent's determination . Petitioner concedes her underlying tax liability ; thus, the Court reviews the determination to see whether there hasi ;been an abuse of discretion by respondent's,Appeals Office in the determination . See Lunsford v . Commissioner ,'117 T .C . 183, 185 (2001)'(citing Nicklaus v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 117 (2001)) . The Court has described the standard by which respondent' s determinations in CDP cases are reviewed as an "abuse of discretion," meaning "arbitrary, capricious ; clearly unlawful,'or without, sound basis in fact or law ." Ewing v . Commissioner , 122 T .C . 32, 39 (2004), rev'd on other grounds, 439 F .3d 1009 (9th Cir . 2006) ; see also- Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T ..C . 19, 23 (1999)" .' Utilizing this standard, this Court .does not find that respondent's Appeals Office abused its discretion . Respondent simply used the available methods under the Internal Revenue Code for protecting the United States' claims against subsequen t creditors . Conclusio n Based on the record , the Court hobs that the Appeals Offic e did not abuse its discretion in determining that respondent's filing of a NFTL with respect to petitioner's residence was an ; appropriate collection action . Finally, in reaching the conclusion described herein, th e Court has considered all arguments made, and, to the extent not ' mentioned above, finds them to be moot, irrelevant, or withou t t merit . To reflect the foregoing, ecision will be entere d for r spondent .