TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Lyle W. Conway
Docket Number: 23334-06L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/20/2008
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D .C . 2021 7 T' SE, z,, °T>T . LYLE W . CONWAY, Petitioner, v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 23334-06L 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 Spokane, Washington on October 21, 2008, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order of dismissal will be entered granting respondent's oral motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness . (Signed ) Diane L . Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . November 20, 2008 SERVED Nov 20 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroup a 2 October 21, 2008 Conway v . Commissioner 3 Docket No . 23334-06 L 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the 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 in section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 12 All section references are to the Internal Revenu e 13 Code as amended and in effect for the time periods at 14 issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court 15 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 16 This is a collection review case involving 17 the filing of a notice of Federal tax levy and lien to 18 collect Petitioner's section 6672 trust fun d 19 liabilities regarding Lyle's Smokeshop's failure t o 20 file Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment (FUTA) Tax 21 Returns, Form 940, for 1998 through 2003, which shall 22 be referred to as "the periods at issue ." Thi s 23 collection review matter is before the Court o n 24 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss On Grounds of Mootness, 25 filed on October 21, 2008, as there are no unpaid tax Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 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 4 amounts for any of the periods of issue as shown o n Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments . Robert E . Kovacevich appeared on behalf o f Petitioner, and Catherine Campbell appeared on behal f of Respondent . FINDINGS OF FACT Certain facts have been stipulated . Th e stipulation of facts, with accompanying exhibits, ar e incorporated by this reference . The facts are s o found . Petitioner resided in Washington at the tim e he filed the collection review petition in this case . For years before 1998, Petitioner's busines s known as Lyle's Smokeshop filed Forms 940 and pai d over the amount of Federal Unemployment Tax on a n annual basis . Petitioner stopped filing annual Form s 940 for the years 1999 through and including 2004 (th e tax periods at issue) . Petitioner argued that th e business was exempt from filing Forms 940 becaus e Petitioner was a member of the Puyallup Indian Trib e and the business was located on the Puyallu p Reservation . Respondent's Revenue Officer sent Petitione r a letter statin%,,that the business was not exempt fro m Vor m paying F a 940 taxes because Petitioner was not a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 tribal governmental entity . Instead, Petitioner was 2 an individual member of a tribe . 3 The business filed Forms 940 for each of the 4 tax periods at issue . Based on the filed Forms 940 , 5 Respondent made the assessments reflected on the 6 returns along with penalties and interest . Afte r 7 notice and demand, Petitioner did not remit payment 8 for the balance due amounts . 9 On May 17, 2005, Respondent issued t o 10 Petitioner a Final Notice-Notice of Intent to Levy and 11 Your Right to a Hearing for the outstanding 94 0 12 liabilities for the periods at issue . The notic e 13 advised Petitioner that Respondent intended to levy to 14 collect unpaid liabilities for the tax periods a t 15 issue . The following day, Respondent also filed a 16 Federal Tax Lien with the County Auditor in Pierce 17 County, Washington, (the lien action) regarding the 18 unpaid 940 liabilities . 19 Petitioner timely requested a hearing and 20 raised the issue again that the business was no t 21 liable for 940 liabilities but offered no collection 22 alternative . Settlement Officer Vander Linde n 23 explained that Petitioner was liable for the 94 0 24 liabilities because the Form 940 exemptions described 25 in Announcement 2001-16, 2001 C .B . 715 (Feb . 20, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 2001), applied only to Federally recognized Indian 2 tribal governments, not individuals operating o n 3 tribal land . The settlement officer requested certain 4 information from Petitioner and also proposed in a 5 letter dated August 17, 2006, whether Petitioner would 6 agree to an installment agreement of $600 per month . 7 If the settlement officer did not hear back fro m 8 Petitioner by a certain date, the settlement officer 9 would issue a determination notice with th e 10 information the settlement officer had in the 11 administrative file . 12 On October 17, 2006, Appeals issued a Notice 13 of Determination which sustained the tax lien an d 14 levy . We note that issuing the Determination Notice 15 on or after October 17, 2006, means that this Court 16 has exclusive jurisdiction to redetermine collection 17 review matters even though the Court previously lacked 18 subject matter jurisdiction over trust fun d 19 liabilities, the underlying tax liability at issu e 20 here . Pension Protection Act of 2006x, Pub . L . No . 5-Fat. 21 109-280, section 855(a), 120 &at . 780, amending 22 section 6330(d)(1) to provide all CDP determinations 23 be appealed solely to the Tax Court . 24 Petitioner asserted in his petition that the 25 settlement officer erred in failing to put Petitioner Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 on non-collectible status . Petitioner did not assign 2 any errors to the merits of the 940 liability nor does 3 it allege any facts pertinent to the merits of the 940 4 liability . These issues are now deemed conceded . 5 Rule 334(b) . 6 At trial, Respondent provided Forms 4340 for 7 all the years at issue showing no unpaid amounts due . 8 Respondent then orally moved to dismiss on grounds of .. ... . . . . .... 9 mootness . Petitioner did not object to the motion to 10 dismiss but seeks a refund of amounts overpaid for the 11 years at issue . Respondent, relying on Greene-Thapedi 12 v . Commissioner , 126 T .C . 1 (2006), argues that we do 13 not have jurisdiction to provide the relief Petitioner 14 seeks . We agree . 15 OPINION 16 This Court is a court of limite d 17 jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the 18 extent authorized by Congress . Naftel v . 19 Commissioner , 85 T .C . 527, 529 (1985) . We hav e 20 jurisdiction to redetermine a taxpayer's Federal tax 21 liabilities in a deficiency proceeding where th e 22 Commissioner has issued a valid deficiency notice and 23 the taxpayer has timely filed a petition . Secs . 6212 24 and 6213 ; Rule 13 (a) , (c) . 25 Our jurisdiction in this case is predicated Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 upon section 6330(d)(1)(A), which gives the Tax Court 2 jurisdiction "with respect to such matter" as i s 3 covered by the final determination in a requested 4 hearing before the Appeals Office . See Davis v . 5 Commissioner , 115 T .C . 35, 37 (2000) . 6 This Court has recognized limits to it s 7 ability to provide relief in collection review matters 8 under section 6330 . For instance, this Court has held 9 that it lacks jurisdiction in a collection revie w 10 matter proceeding to determine an overpayment or to 11 order a refund or credit of the taxes paid . Greene- 12 Thapedi v . Commissioner , 13 126 T .C . 1 (2006) . Because the parties agree that 14 there is no unpaid liability for any of the years at 15 issue, we shall grant Respondent's oral motion t o 16 dismiss on grounds of mootness . In addition, we lack 17 jurisdiction in this collection review matter t o 18 address any overpayment issues that Petitioner seeks 19 to raise at this late date . 20 To reflect the foregoing, an appropriat e 21 order will be issued dismissing this collection review 22 matter on grounds of mootness . 23 This concludes the court's oral findings of 24 fact and opinion in this case . 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 (Whereupon , at 1 :28 p .m ., the bench opinion 2 in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 18 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 2 4 25 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888