TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Gloria Pomerantz
Docket Number: 5218-05L
Judge: Armen
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 12/22/2005
Pages: 10

9 { T .C . Memo . 2005-29 5 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T GLORIA POMERANTZ, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 5218-05L . Filed December 22, 2005 . Richard E . Preston and Suyeun Jacqueline Pvun , fo r (cid:127) petitioner . Jeffrey Gold , for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge : This collection review case is before the Court on respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment .' As explained in detail below, we shall grant respondent's motion . 1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended , and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . SERVED DEC 2 2 20 (cid:127) - 2 - Backgroun d G1 ria Pomerantz (petitioner) is an attorney . Petitioner timely iled Forms 1040, U .S . Individual Income Tax Return, for 1995 an 1996 . Respondent subsequently initiated an examination of peti Toner's returns for those years . On November 3, 2003, petitioner executed and submitted to respond nt a Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Represeitative, appointing Allan Serchay (Mr . Serchay), identified as a certified public accountant, to act as her represe tative with regard to Federal income tax matters for 1995 throug 1998 . Paragraph 5 of the Form 2848 states : Acts authorized . The representatives are authorized to r eive and inspect confidential tax information and to pErform any and all acts that I (we) can perform wit h r spect to the tax matters described on line 3, for example, t le authority to sign any agreements, consents, or othe r d cuments . The authority does not include the power to r ceive refund checks (see line 6 below), the power t o s bstitute another representative, the authority to execute a request for a tax return, or a consent to disclose ta x i formation unless specifically added below, or the power to s gn certain returns . 0 The re ainder of paragraph 5 of the Form 2848, which allows a taxpayer to list specific additions or deletions to the acts that the re resentative is authorized to perform, is blank . 0 January 30, 2004, Mr . Serchay executed, on petitioner's behalf a Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, consenting to the immediate assessment and collection of increased taxes, intere t, and fraud penalties for petitioner's taxable years 1995 (cid:127) 7 - 3 - and 1996 . Pursuant to that consent , respondent assessed the following amounts on March 8, 2004 : 1995 1996 additional tax $55,639 .00 $8,373 .00 fraud penalty 41,729 .25 6,279 .75 interest 78,418 .20 9,578 .9 1 On that same date, respondent sent petitioner a notice of balance due (i .e ., a notice and demand for payment) . In the interim, on February 24, 2004, petitioner submitted (cid:127) to respondent an offer-in-compromise on the basis of doubt as to collectibility with regard to her tax liabilities for 1995 and 1996 . Petitioner offered to pay $10,000 to respondent within 90 days of her offer . Respondent rejected petitioner's offer-in- compromise after concluding that she had sufficient equity in her residence to pay the taxes in dispute . At some point during the summer of 2004, petitioner executed a new Form 2848 appointing Alvin Brown (Mr . Brown) to serve as (cid:127) her representative with regard to her income tax liabilities for 1995 and 1996 . On August 17, 2004, respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien at the County Courthouse in Broward County, Florida, with regard to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 1995 and 1996 . On August 24, 2004, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 for 1995 and 1996 (the lien notice) . In response to the - 4 - lien notice, Mr . Brown submitted to respondent a timely request for an dministrative hearing . On November 5, 2004, petitioner submitted to respondent Form 433-A, ollection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Em loyed Individuals, and Form 433-B, Collection Information Stateme t for Business . On December 8, 2004, Settlement Officer Elsie Stewart of respond nt's Appeals Office in Plantation, Florida, held a telephoiic conference with Mr . Brown and petitioner regarding 9 petitio er's case . Mr . Brown asserted that the assessments for 1995 ani 1996 should be abated because they were : (1) Incorrect ; (2) ent red without issuance of a statutory notice of deficiency ; and (3) entered after the expiration of the normal 3-year period of limitations . O February 18, 2005, respondent's Appeals Office mailed to petiti ner a Notice Of Determination Concerning Collection Action s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, sustaining the filing 0 of the notice of Federal tax lien against petitioner . 0 March 17, 2005, petitioner timely filed with the Court a petiti n challenging respondent's notice of determination .' Petiti ner alleged in the petition that respondent erred in determining that she could not challenge the existence or amount 2 At the time that the petition was filed, petitioner reside in Ft . Lauderdale, Fla . I - 5 - of her outstanding liabilities for 1995 and 1996 during the collection review process . After filing an answer to the petition, respondent filed a Motion For Summary Judgment . Petitioner filed an opposition to respondent's motion . This matter was called for hearing at the Court's November 9, 2005 motions session held in Washington, D .C . Counsel for both parties appeared at the hearing and offered argument in respect of respondent's motion . Following th e (cid:127) hearing, petitioner filed a supplement to her opposition . Discussion Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation an d avoid unnecessary and expensive trials . See Fla . Peach Corp . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 678, 681 (1988) . Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in controversy if : (cid:127) the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law . * * * Rule 121(b) ; Sundstrand Corp . v . Commissioner , 98 T .C . 518, 520 (1992), affd . 17 F .3d 965 (7th Cir . 1994) . The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment . See Dahlstrom v . Comm issioner , 85 T .C . 812, 821 (1985) ; Jacklin v . Commissioner , 79 T .C . 340, 344 (1982) . - 6 - Th record reflects that there is no genuine issue as to any materia fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter f law . Federal Tax Lien Se tion 6321 imposes a lien in favor of the United States on all pro erty and rights to property of a person liable for taxes when a errand for the payment of the person's taxes has been made and the person fails to pay those taxes . Such a lien arises when an assessment is made . Sec . 6322 . However, section 6323(a) requires the Secretary to file a notice of Federal tax lien if the li is to be valid against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor . Behlinc v . Commissioner, 118 T .C . 572, 575 (2002) . SEction 6320 provides that the Secretary shall furnish the person described in section 6321 with written notice of the filing of a notice of lien under section 6323 . Section 6320 also provid s that the person may request administrative review of the is matter in the form of an Appeals Office hearing . Section 6320(c) provid s that the Appeals Office hearing generally shall be conduc ed consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330(c, (d), and (e) . S ction 6330(c)(1) imposes on the Appeals Office a n obliga ion to verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met . Section 6330(c)(2)(A ; provi s that the person may raise at the hearing any relevant (cid:127) - 7 - issue relating to the unpaid tax, including appropriate spousal defenses , challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions, and offers of collection alternatives . Section 6330 ( c)(2)(B) provides that the person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if the person did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have a n . opportunity to dispute such tax liability . Section 6330 ( d) provides for judicial review of the administrative determination in the Tax Court or a Federal District Court, as may be appropriate . Petitioner asserts that the Appeals Office erred in denying her an opportunity to challenge her underlying liabilities for 1995 and 1996 because ( 1) she did not receive a notice of deficiency for those years, and ( 2) she was never given a ful l (cid:127) and fair opportunity to contest her liability for additions to tax for fraud for those years . We disagree . As previously discussed, section 6330 ( c)(2)(B) provides that the person may raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if the person did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability . The record in this case reflects that, although petitioner did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency for 1995 and 1996 , she did in fact have a prior opportunity to - 8 - dispute her liability for those years . In particular, Mr . Serchay, petitioner's duly appointed representative, executed Form 4529 consenting to the immediate assessment and collection of the ncome taxes, fraud penalties, and interest tha t respond nt assessed and is attempting to collect from petitioner . It is w 11 settled that "for purposes of section 6330(c)(2)(B), a taxpaye who has signed a Form 4549-CG waiving * * * [her] right to chal enge the proposed assessments should be deemed to have had an )pportunity to dispute * * * [her] tax liabilities and is thereby precluded from challenging those tax liabilities ." Zapara r . Commissioner, 124 T .C . 223, 228 (2005) ; see Aguirre v . Comm is 'oner, 117 T .C . 324, 327 (2001) . Under the circumstances, petiti ner is deemed to have had a prior opportunity to dispute her li bilities for 1995 and 1996 within the meaning of section 6320(c)(2)(B), and, therefore, she is not entitled to challenge the ex stence or amount of her liabilities for those years during the collection review process . 3 ' To the extent that petitioner seeks to raise the affirm tive defense of the normal 3-year period of limitations under ec . 6501(a), we observe that sec . 6501(c) provides an except on to the period of limitations ; i .e ., in the case of fraud, additional tax may be assessed at any time . Regardless, the pl ading of the statute of limitations by petitioner consti utes a challenge to the underlying tax liability, which challe ge is barred because she is deemed to have had an opport nity to dispute such tax liability . Commissioner, 119 T .C . 140, 145 (2002) ; Golden v . Commissioner , T .C . mo . 2005-170 . Hoffman v . (cid:127) (cid:127) T - 9 - Conclusio n Petitioner has not alleged any irregularity in the assessment procedure that would raise a question about the validity of the assessments or the information contained in the transcript of account . Moreover, petitioner has failed to make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent's intended collection action or offer alternative means of collection . These issues are now deemed conceded . Rule 331(b)(4) . Under the (cid:127) circumstances, we conclude that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law sustaining the notice of determination . To reflect the foregoing , 49 An Order granting respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment and Decision will be entered . S (cid:127)