TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Rhonda L. Laster
Docket Number: 12285-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/11/2008
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D .C . 2021' 7 RHONDA L . LASTER, Petitioner , v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 12285-07L ADM . RE CORDED SERVICE CAL . STAT . Rr~i' JUDGE F ILE S O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is 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 Memphis , Tennessee on June 10, 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 and decision will beentered for respondent . (Signed ) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . July 11, 2008 SERVED JUL 1 1 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa June 10, 200 8 2 Laster v . Commissioner Docket No . 12285-07 L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 4 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 5 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 6 fact and opinion . These oral findings of fact an d 7 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 8 other case . 9 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 10 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 11 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 12 Code as amended and in effect for 2003, the year at 13 issue, and all rule references are to the Tax Court 14 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 15 This is a collection review case involving 16 the filing of a notice of Federal tax levy to collect 17 petitioner's unpaid liabilities for the taxable year 18 2003 . This collection review matter is before th e 19 Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgmen t 20 filed on April 1, 2008 . ', wee, . "30s+I 4 21 L s e) appeared on h -r-~:) behal f 22 ~ooroiihe, 1k . Kr%J&-V-0.. cU-k.. Beth-A . appeared on behalf of respondent . 6LA 23 FINDINGS OF FAC T 24 The record establishes or the parties do not 25 dispute the following : Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 Petitioner resided in Tennessee at the time 2 she filed the collection review petition in this case . 3 Petitioner filed a return for the year at issue bu t 4 did not pay the entire amount owing . Respondent 5 assessed the amount of unpaid taxes reflected on the 6 return for 2003 . Petitioner failed to pay th e 7 assessed taxes based upon the return petitioner filed . 8 Respondent therefore issued to petitioner a lette r 9 dated July 20, 2006, entitled "Final Notice-Notice of 10 Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing," 11 for the outstanding tax liability for the year at 12 issue . (This notice shall be referred to as the "Levy 13 Notice ." ) 14 In response to the Levy Notice, petitioner 15 timely requested a hearing . In her hearing request, 16 petitioner did not dispute the liability due . The 17 only issue she raised was her desire for a collection 18 alternative to avoid additional levy action being 19 taken . Petitioner had unpaid amounts for 1998, 1999, 20 and 2004 . Petitioner's representative informe d 21 respondent that petitioner had no equity in property, 22 that petitioner worked several jobs, had unstead y 23 income, that petitioner was currently considered self- 24 employed but would soon be starting a new job an d 25 needed a vehicle . Petitioner's representative stated Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 that petitioner would be moving soon but did not 2 expect to pay much more for an apartment tha n 3 petitioner had been paying for rent and storage . 4 The settlement officer assigned t o 5 petitioner ' s hearing informed petitioner that, based 6 upon the financial information petitioner provided, 7 petitioner could fully pay the outstanding liability 8 for 2003 by paying $ 190 a month . Petitioner chose not 9 to enter into the installment agreement . Petitioner 10 rejected the installment agreement , stating tha t 11 petitioner may file bankruptcy instead . No other 12 issues were raised , and no other collectio n 13 alternatives were proposed . By rejecting the 14 installment agreement, the settlement office r 15 sustained the proposed collection action by levy in a 16 Notice of Determination Concerning Collectio n 17 Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated April 18 26, 2007 . Petitioner timely filed a petition t o 19 contest the proposed levy action to collec t 20 petitioner's unpaid tax liability for the year at 21 issue . Petitioner stated that the levy action is 22 unnecessary because petitioner does not have any 23 equity in property and collection of tax would create 24 an undue hardship on petitioner . Based on the 25 financial information gathered , petitioner's earnings Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 are likely to be less than her monthly expenses . 2 Petitioner is deficiency on her phone bill and he r 3 utility bill . Petitioner's representative requested 4 that the levy be withdrawn . Petitioner provided no 5 financial information on the required forms, however . 6 As previously stated, respondent filed a 7 summary judgment motion, and petitioner failed to file 8 a response or objection . 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 an d 13 expensive trials . See, e .g ., FPL Group, Inc . v . 14 Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for 15 summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, 16 answers to interrogatories , depositions , admissions, 17 and other acceptable materials, together with the 18 affidavits , Lf any, show that there is no genuin e 19 issue as to any material fact and that a decision may 20 be rendered as a matter of law . See Rule 121(b) ; 21 Elect . Arts, Inc . v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 22 (2002 ) . The moving party has the burden of provin g 23 that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that 24 it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . See, 25 e .g ., Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 162 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 (2002 ) . The party opposing summary judgment must set 2 forth specific facts that show that a genuine question 3 of material fact exists and may not rely merely o n 4 allegations or denials in the pleadings . Grant Creek 5 Water Works , Ltd . v . Commissioner , 91 T .C . 322, 32 5 6 (1988 ) ; Casanova Co . v . Commissioner , 87 T .C . 214, 217 7 (1986) . 8 Standard of Review . We begin with the 9 standard of review . Where the validity of th e 10 underlying tax liability is properly at issue, th e 11 Court will review the matter on a de novo basis . Sego 12 v . Commissioner , 114 T . C . 604, 610 ( 2000 ) . Where, as 13 is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax 14 liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court 15 will review respondent ' s determination for abuse o f 16 discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , supra ; Goza v . 17 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176 , 181-182 (2000) . We must 18 decide whether respondent exercised his discretion 19 arbitrarily , capriciously , or without sound basis in 20 fact or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 21 19, 23 ( 1999 ) ; Fargo v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 22 2004-13 . Based upon our examination of the entire 23 record before us , we find that respondent did not 24 abuse his discretion in determining that th e 25 collection action should proceed with respect to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 2003 . 2 We now discuss general collectio n 3 proceedings . If any person liable for Federal tax 4 liability neglects or refuses to make payment within 5 ten days of notice and demand , the Commissioner i s 6 authorized to collect the tax by levy on that person's 7 property . See sec . 6331(a) . At least 30 days before 8 enforcing collection by levy on the person's property, 9 the Secretary is obliged to provide the person with a 10 final notice of intent to levy, including notice of 11 the administrative appeals available to the person . 12 See sec . 6331(d) . 13 The person is entitled, upon request, to an 14 administrative review hearing before Appeals . Sec . 15 6330(b)(1) . If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or 16 she may raise at that hearing any relevant issue s 17 relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy . Sec . 18 6330(c)(2) . Relevant issues include any appropriate 19 spousal defenses , challenges to the appropriateness of 20 collection, and possible alternative means o f 21 collection such as an installment agreement or an 22 offer-in-compromise . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(A) . After the 23 hearing, the Appeals officer is required to make a 24 determination that addresses issues the taxpaye r 25 raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 law and administrative procedures have been met, and 2 balances the need for the efficient collection o f 3 taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that 4 any collection action be no more intrusive than 5 necessary . Sec . 6330(c) (3) (C) . 6 The record reflects that the settlement 7 officer properly verified that all the legal an d 8 procedural requirements have been met . The settlement 9 officer confirmed, using a transcript of petitioner's 10 accounts, that assessments were properly made for the 11 year at issue, that appropriate and timely notice s 12 were sent regarding the assessments, and tha t 13 petitioner was properly informed of her rights with 14 respect to the proposed levy action . 15 Petitioner argues that no one ever asked her 16 for any additional financial information . The record 17 reflects that the settlement officer determined that 18 petitioner could pay, based on the information tha t 19 petitioner provided, $190 a month, which petitione r 20 rejected . In addition, petitioner did not present any 21 additional financial information for respondent 46 c '- 22 evaluate any alternatives . We have frequently and 23 consistently held that an officer does not abuse any 24 discretion by refusing to consider collectio n 25 alternatives if the taxpayer fails to submit the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 required and requested financial information . It is 2 not an abuse of discretion for personnel to refuse to 3 consider collection alternatives where a taxpaye r 4 fails to submit requested financial information . Sapp 5 6 7 v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2006-104 ; Pricchiottino v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-231 ; Newstat v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-208 . 8 Petitioner has not asserted any spousal 9 defenses , or otherwise offered any additiona l 10 collection alternatives . See sec . 6330(c)(2) . 11 Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded . 12 Rule 331(b)(4) . 13 Petitioner has not presented any evidence or 14 persuasive arguments to convince us that responden t 15 abused his discretion . We therefore conclude that 16 respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding 17 respondent's proposed levy action to collect fro m 18 petitioner outstanding tax liabilities for 2003 . 19 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 20 entered for respondent and an appropriate order will 21 be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in 22 the Notice of Determination Concerning Collectio n 23 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated April 24 26, 2007, upon which this case is based, regarding the 25 unpaid liabilities for the taxable year 2003 . Th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 order will also grant respondent 's motion for summary 2 judgment . 3 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 4 fact and opinion in this case. 5 (Whereupon, at 2 :41 p .m ., the bench opinion 6 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 7 8 9 10 11 12 // 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888