TAX COURT OPINION

Case: John Anthony Dominguez
Docket Number: 11755-10L
Judge: Chiechi
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 11/29/2011
Pages: 21

T.C. Memo. 2011-281 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHN ANTHONY DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11755-10L. Filed November 29, 2.011. John Anthony Dominguez, pro se. t Derek W. Kaczmarek, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI Judcte: This case is before the Court on respon- dent's motion f or sunimary judgment .2 We shall grant. re spondent ' s motion. 1Respondent filed the declaration of settlement officer Margaret Gaona in support of respondent' s motion for summary judgment. summary judgment and that declaratiori as respondent's motion. We shall refer collectively to respondent's motion for gggpiO NOV 2 9 2011l - 2 - Background The record establishes and/or . the parties do not dispute the . following. Petitioner resided in Arizona at the time he filed the petition. On April 15,. 2001,. petitioner filed a Federal income tax (tax) return (return) for his taxable year 2000 (2000 return). When petitioner filed his 2000 return, he did not pay the tax due shown in that return. On May 21, 2001, respondent assessed . the tax shown in petitioner' s 2000 return. On August 13, 2001, respondent applied a certain credit against that tax and assessed an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2)2 and interest as provided by law. On September 12,.2005, respondent assessed an additional addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2) . . On May 14, 2009, respondent assessed additional interest as provided by law. (We shall refer to any unpaid assessed amounts with respect to petitioner's taxable year 2000, as well as interest as provided by law accrued after May 14, 2009, as petitioner's unpaid 2000 liability.) On various dates, respondent issued to petitioner notices of balance due with respect to petitioner's unpaid 2000 liability. 2All section references are to -the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . times. All Rule references are to the Tax - 3 - On .October 28, 2.008, p titioner filed a return for his taxable year 200.7 (2007 retûrn) . When petitioner filed his 2007 return, he did not pay the ax due $shown in that return. On. November 24, 2008, respondent assessed the tax shown in petitioner' s 2007 return, additions to tax under sections 6651(a) (1) .and (2.) and 6654(a), and interest as provided by law. On December 1, 2008, respondent applied a certain credit against petitioner's tax and assessed additional interest as provided by law. On May 14, 2009, respondent assessed an additional addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2) and additional interest as provided by law. (We shall refer to.any unpaid assessed amounts with respect' to petitioner's taxable year 2007, as well as interest as provided by law accrued after May 14, 2009, as petitioner's unpaid 2007 liability.) On various dates, respondent issued to petitioner notices of balance due with respect to petitioner' s unpaid 2007 liability. Petitioner did not file a tax return for any of his taxable years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Respondent prepared a substitute for return for each of those years. . On May 22, 200'7, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency with respect to his taxable years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 (notice ·of deficiency) . pPetitioner did not file a petition with the Ccurt with respect to that notice of defi- ciency. On October.29, 2007, respondent assessed tax and additions to tax under sections 6651(a) (1) and (2) and 6654(a), as deter- mined in the notice of deficiency with respect to each of peti- tioner's taxable years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 and interest as provided by law. On May 14, 2009, respondent assessed an addi- tional addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2.) with respect to each of petitioner's taxable years 2003 and 2004 and additional . interest as provided by law. On April 15, 2010, respondent applied as a credit against petitioner's unpaid tax for his taxable year 2001 an overpayment for his taxable year 2009. (We shall refer to any unpaid assessed amounts with respect to petitioner's taxable years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, as well as interest as provided by law accrued after May 14, 2009, as petitioner's unpaid 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 liabilities.) on various dates, respondent issued to petitioner respective notices of balance due with respect to petitioner's unpaid 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 liabilities. On October 28, 2008, petitioner filed a return for his taxable year 2005. Respondent accepted that return as peti- tioner's amended return for his taxable year 2005 (petitioner's 2005 amended return). When petitioner filed his 2005 amended return, he did not pay the.tax due shown in that return. On February 23, 2009, respondent assessed the tax shown in petitioner's 2005 amended return, additions to tax under sections 6651(a) (1) and (2).and 6654 (a), and interest' as provided by law. On May·14, 2009, respondent assessed an additional addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2) and additional interest as provided by law. (We:shall refer to any unpaid assessed amounts with respect to petitioner's taxable year 2005, as well as interest as provided by law accrued after May 14, 2009, as petitioner's unpaid 2005 liability.) .. . . On February 23, 2009, espondent issued to petitioner a notice of balance due with respect to petitioner's unpaid 2005 . liability. On May 14, 2009, respondent issued to.petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing (notice of intent to levy) with respect to petitioner's taxable years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007. On June 12, 2009, petitioner timely submitted to respondent Form 12153, Request.for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (petitioner's Form 12153), with respect to the notice of intent to levy. In.that form, petitioner indicated his disagree- ment with the notice of intent to levy and requested a hearing with respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals Office). ï In peti- tioner's Form 12153,| petitioner stated in pertinent part: "I would like to propose a different way to pay the money I owe, partial payment installment agreement or offer in compromise, I hope you can help me with th,is." By letter dated.June 23, 2009, respondent acknowledged receipt of petitioner' s Form 112153 . That . letter stated in pe r t inent par t : 5. Our records indicate you have not filed the following tax returns: 2008. processing of your request, please mail no later than July 07, 2009. To expedite the these returns To expedite the processing of your request, 6. please complete the enclosed Collection Informa tion Statement, and return this form in the envelope provided no.later- than Ju'ly 07, 2009. B . 8.. Before collection alternatives can be considered, you must file all tax returns that are currently due. If I have not received your 2008 tax return along with the completed Form 433-F by the date shown above L will appeals for consideration. records of your income and Form 656 Offer in Comprom1se. to I have enclosed our forward,your request On July 7, 2009, the date on which petitioner filed a return for his taxable year 2008 (2008 return), petitioner submitted to respondent a completed Form 433-F, Collection Information State- ment (petitioner's Form 433-F). Petitioner's Form 433-F contained several sections identi- fied as sections A through H. In section A of that form, peti- tioner indicated that he maintained a savings account that had a balance of $18 and an "individual retirement plan" and that he participated in a profit-sharing arrangement.3 In section C of 3Instead of showing the respective balances in petitioner's individual retirement plan" and in the profit-sharing plan in which petitioner participated, he stated in section A of Form (continued...) petitioner's Form 433-F, petitioner indicated that he owned a 1991 Plymouth Voyagèr valued at $200. In section E of that form, petitioner indicateck that he was paid weekly and that his then- current year-to-date total income was $20, 000 and that his total income as reported in his 2008 return was $42,442. In section G of petitioner's Form 433-F, titled "Monthly Necessary 'Living Expenses", petitioner indicated in pertinent part: 3 ( . to which petitioner referred in section A of The record does not contain the . . continued) "See attached paper". 433-F: "attached paper" petitioner's Form 433-F. Food/Personal Care Housing & Utilities Other Food $400 Rent $675 Child/dependent Housekeeping supplies 20 Electric, oil/gas, water/trash Clothing and clothing services , . 25 . Telephone and/or cell . phone . .Personal care Real estate taxes and products & services 25 insurance Misc. (cable, . Internet, etc.) Total 55 525 Total 226 45 -0- 946 care Estimated tax payments Term life insurance, . Retirement (employer requi'red) Retirement (voluntary) Court-ordered payments See attached paper2 . -0- -0, -0- ? -- -0- Transportation Medical Gas/insurance/ licenses/parking/ maintenance, etc.1 Public transportation 145 -0- Health insurance ? Out-of-pocket health care expenses -0- 1The amount claimed for "Gas" .and other items was not totally legible. 2The record does not contain the "attached paper" to which petitioner referred in section G of petitioner's Form 433-F. By letter dat-ed July 13, 2009, respondent informed peti- tioner that a representative of the Appeals Of f ice would contact him regarding the date and the time of a hearing. A settlement officer with the Appeals Office (settlement officer) who was assigned petitioner's Form 12153 sent petitioner a letter dated September 16, 2009. That letter stated in perti- nent part: Appeals received your request for a Collection Due Process (CDP) Hearing. conference call for you on October 21, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time. This call will be your primary opportunity to discuss with me the reasons you disagree with the collection action and/or to discuss alternatives to the collection action. I have scheduled a telephone f.or you, the phone the Appeals office clos- If this time is not convenient number has changed, or you would prefer your conference to be held by face-to-face at est the school you attend or to your current residence, your place of employment or if you are a business, your business address, or bý correspondence, please let me know within fourteen (14) days from the date of this letter, by September 29, 2009. if there are any offices that may be more convenient f or you (e . g . ,· Appeals of f ice nearest place of employment or school) when you contact me . I will discuss with you During the hearing, I must consider: (cid:16)042 Whether the IRS met all the requirements of. any applicable law or administrative procedure (cid:16)042 Any nonfrivolous. issues you wish to discuss. The s e can include : 1. 2. 3. Collection alternatives to levy such as full pay ent of the liability, installment agreement, offer in compromise or temporary suspension of collection action if the action imposes a hardship * condition. * * * Challenges to the appropriateness of collection action. * * * Spousal defenses, when applicable. (cid:16)042 We may also consiåe r whether you owe the amount due, but only if you have not otherwise had an opportunity to dispute it with Appeals or- did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency. (cid:16)042 We will balance the IRS' need for efficient tax Gollection and your legitimate concern that sive than necessary. the collection action be no more intru- - 10 - * * * * * * For me. to consider alternative collection methods such as an installment agreement or offer in compromise, you must provide any items listed below. must have filed all filed. In addition, you tax returns required to be federal (cid:16)042 A c.ompleted Collection Information Statement (Please include (Form 433-A for individuals), the last 3 months of pay and bank statements along with supporting documents to substantiate your expenses such as rent and/or mortgage statement, proof of vehicle and health insurance, utility, water, gas statements etc) * * * . Offer in Compromise - If you plan to submit an Offer in Compromise, please complete the appropriate forms and submit Form 656 and required payments prior to the hearing, by September 29, 2009. * * * On October 21, 2009, the settlement officer held a tele- phonic conference (October 21, 2009 conference). with petitioner. The settlement officer informed petitioner during that conference that she had not received from him Form 433-A, Collection Infor- mation Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals (Form 433-A), but that she would be willing to review and con- sider a completed Form 433-A if he faxed it to her that day. Petitioner did not dispute his underlying tax liability during the October 21, 2009 conference. Instead, petitioner indicated during that conference that he wanted to enter into an install- ment agreement with respondent under which he proposed to pay $125 each month. _ 11 - - On October 23., 2009, t e set lement officer received"by facsimile from.petitioner F rm 433-A and supporting documentation (petitionerl s Form 433±A) . Petitioner's Form 433- containednseveral sections identi- fied.as sections 1 through 6. Ir section 4 of that.form, peti- tioner indicated that he maintained a (cid:0)541avingstaccount that had a balance of $14 , s toçk investments gvalued . at $2 , 877, ¶ and a sec - tion 401(k) plantwith respect to which he failed to state a value. In sections 3 and 4 of petitioner's Form 433 A, peti- tioner: próvided.-the responses indicated to. the following ques- tions: 8 Any. iñerease/decrease «in Income anticipated. (business or personal) * O Yes E No * * * * * * * * 15a. Life Insurance, insuranced with ' a does not have a c sh value . ) es the individual have life sh value (Term, bife Insurance * * *O Yes H No In section 4 of petitioner' s Form 433-A, petitioner indi- cated that he owned (1) a 1991 Plymouth Voyager valued at $300, 'Although petitioner' s Form 433-A contained information provided in petitioner' s; Form 433 F, tained additional (discussed below).. informatiori some of the same it also con- sIn petitioñer's Form 433-F, petitioner did not indicate - that he had stock investment . (2) a "living room set" valued.at $200,. (3) and a "bedroom set" - 12 - valued at $250. In section 4 of petitioner's Form 433-A, petitioner also listed va.rious income items and various living expense items. With respect to the income items listed in that section, peti- tioner indicated that he had total monthly income of $1,800 consisting of wages. With respect to the expense items listed in section 4 of.petitioner's Form 433-A, petitioner indicated that he had total monthly living expenses of $1,622 consisting of $450 for food, clothing, housekeeping supplies, and personal care products, $946 for housing and utilities, $90 for vehicle-operat.- ing costs, $50 for health insurance,.$50 for out-of-pocket health care costs, and $36 for life insurance.' On October 25, 2009, the settlement officer reviewed peti- tioner's Form 433-A and supporting documentation. The settlement officer determined petitioner's monthly income and monthly expenses on the basis of petitioner's earnings statements and guidelines published by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on national and local living expense standards (IRS' national and In petitioner's Form 433-F, petitioner indicated that his 1991 Plymouth Voyager was valued at $200 and did not that he owned a "living room set" or a "bedroom set". indicate 7In petitioner's Form 433-F, petitioner indicated that he that he was had $145 of expenses for vehicle-operating costs, unsure of he had no life insurance expenses or out-of-pocket health.care expenses. the amount that he paid for health insurance, and that - 13 - local standards) .F !The settlement officer determined that peti- tioner had (1) $4,442 of monthly income, instead of the $1,800 that he reported in petitioner's Form 433-A, and (2) $3,040 of, monthly expenses, instead of'the $1,622 that he reported in-that form. As a result, the settlement officer concluded that the.net amount that petitioner had available after paying his monthly expenses (petitioner's monthly net income)' was $1,402. Conse- quently, she rejected petitioner's proposed installment agreement under which he offered to pay only $125 each month. On April 19, 2010, the Appeals Office issued.to petitioner a notice of determination con erning collection action(s) under 8The settlement officer made the following pertinent entries in the so=called case activity records: * * TP claims his gross income as $1800, I used YTD from his latest to $44'42. He Reviewed and analyzed TP's 433-A and substantiatiion he provided. ,* but per earnings state ents, earnings statement of S¡ept. which came out claimed $946 for Housinig and Utilities which is below the standard, allowed $[946, Operating Cost, TP claimed $90, but per his earnings statement his Auto Insurance deducted per pay period whicÊ totaled $195, allowed standard amount since TP didn't consider the correct amount, Out of pocket Health Care allowed standard amount of $60, Health Insurance TP claimed $50, but per his earnings statement,( TP actually pays $216, allowed this amount, Taxes-TP d!id not earnings statement TP actually pays $978, allowed this amount, Li.fe Insurance-TP claimed $36, per earnings statement, TP pays $52, allowed this amount. total disposable income * lations his disposable income is $178. literally.] - Per his calcu- [Reproduced indicate an amount, per * * is $1402. His 9The settlement officer referred to petitioner's monthly net income as "total disposable income". - 14 - section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination)* with respecti to petitioner's taxable years 200Ó, 2001,. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and:2007.. That notice stated in pertinent part: "We have, determined that the Final Notice-- Notice of Intent .to Levy was appropriate under the c ircums tance s . " The. notice of determination included an attachment that stated .in pertinent 7 part : SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Taxpayers requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing with Appeals under Internal Revenue Code .(IRC) § ". 6330 following receipt. of the Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. The levy enforcement action proposed is the appropriate action in this case, for reasons stated.below. BRIEF BACKGROUND You filed a request for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing under Internal Revenue Code .§ 6330 following receipt of a LT11/1058 Final Notice of and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. Intent to Levy * * * The Final Notice of, Intent to Levy was issued for unpaid income tax for periods ending Deòember 31, 2000, December 31,, 2001, December 31,. 2002, December 31, 2003, December 31, 31, 2007. .2004, December 31, 2005 and December *. * * On October 21, 2009, at 9:30 a.m Pacific Time, lacheduled date and time of your hearing, Settlement Officer called to conduct a telèphonic hearing with you, as you had not requested a face-to2 face hearing. the" assigned the * * * - 15 - DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The Settle- She sed your gross monthly income ,and expenses would by close of business that day. The ettlement Officer reviewed and the Settlement Officer informed you the legal and administrative letter and ask d you if you had Form 433-A, * * You faxed in the 433-A(cid:16)041withsupporting documenta- * She explained in order for her'to consider a the.433-A would need to be During the hearing, that the IRS had met procedures for the pro osing levy action. ment Officer explained to you what was- requested in the contact because she had not·receivedtit prior tos the hearing. * collection alternative, complete and earnings statements, need to be faxed to he * tion on July 23. analyzed the 433 A and substantiation you provided. Based on Form 433-A, y u claimed your gross monthly income ast $1800. as $4442. using the YTD, (year-to-date) amount of $39/977.63 divided by 9 since the last statement you provided was for Septe¶ber. You claimed $946 for Housing and Utilities which is below the standard, allowed $946.,1for Operating Cost,.you claimed $90, but per your earnings statement, you have your Auto Insurance deducted per pay period which totaled $195; Standard amount of $262 was allowed since you did not your.auto lnsurance ln. the amount you claimed. of pocket Health Care, allowed, your earnings statement, you actually pay $216, allowed thistamount, indicate an amount. Based on. your earnings statement; 'you,actually pay $978; Insurance, you claimed $36, per earnings statement, you pay $52; therefore this amount was allowed. Your total disposable income is $1 02 based on the analysis of the information you provided. amount of $125 per month which is too low with your disposable income afte expensesireflecting $1402. for Health Insurance you claimed $50, but per therefore this amount was allowed, for Life the standard amount of $60 was the For Out for Taxes, you did not * You proposed a payment Since your payment proposal was too low, we were unable to explore any collection alternative,.other ,than full payment. The Final Notice, Notice of Intent and your case will be returned to the Compliance Department for the next appropriate action to Levy is sustained Verification of legal and procedural.requirements: - 16 - (cid:16)042 Appeals has obtained verification from the IRS office collecting the tax that the re quirements of any applicable law, or administrative procedure with respect to the proposed levy have been met. Computer records indicate that the notice and demand, notice of intent to levy, and notice of. a right to a Collection Due Process hearing were issued. regulation (cid:16)042 Assessment was properly made per IRC § 6201 for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. . (cid:16)042 The notice and demand for payment letter was mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, within 60 days of by IRC § 6303. the assessment, as required (cid:16)042 There was a balance due when the CDP levy notice was issued. (cid:16)042 There is no offer-in-compromise or install- ment agreement pending or currently in effect. spouse request. There is also no pending innocent (cid:16)042 There is no pending bankruptcy case, nor did the taxpayer have a pending bankruptcy case at (11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (6)). the time the CDP notice was sent Prior involvement: The Appeals employee had no prior involvement with respect to the specific tax periods either in Appeals or Compliance. Collection statute verification: The collection statute has been suspended; tion period allowed by statute to collect these taxes has been suspended by the appropriate computer codes for the tax periods at the collec- issue. - 17 - Collection followed.al ments and the actions aken ore proposed. were appropr1- ate under the circumstances lega and procedural regulre- Issues rafsed by,. the taxpayer , you marked the box On your CDPurequest, F rm 12 L5 requesting the collection alternative of ;an Installment Agreement and Of fer in Compromise . reason for your. CDP request was because4you wanted to propose a dif ferent wa to . pay the money you owe such as a partial payment compromise . You hoped we could help you with this . ir stallment agreement or offer in You stated the You were provided an opportunity to present a collection alternative as a esolution to any further collection 2action.. you were, interested in an Offer in compromise, fore you were askedc to provide rForm 656, Offer in Compromise *'*. * * On your. CDP request, you indicated there- * * Since your payment proposal was too low, we were unable to explore any collection alternative, other than full payment . The Final Notice, Notice of tained Intent to Levy is sus- Collection Alternatives Offered by Taxpayer You requested the collection alternative of an Installment Agreement of an Offer in Compromise.. Challenges to the Existence of Amount of Liability You did not dispute your lia ility. You raised nb otiher i es Balancing of need for payer concern that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessar ficient collection with tax- . We balanced the compeb ng iÈtereÊts in finding tihe proposed levy appropri hearing you offered a collection alternative in the form of installment agreement On your request for a CDP (IA) or Offer in Compro- te. . - 18 - .During your hearing, you proposed a payment mise. amount of $125 per month for an installment agreement as a resolution to the proposed levy. After the hearing, you submitted the Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement and.supporting documents to substantiate your income to the Settlement Officer on October 21, 2009. Your proposed collection alternatives were not accepted for the following reason(s):- (cid:16)042 Review of your÷ financial information reflects your disposable income after expenses to be $1402. (cid:16)042 You did not submit Form 656, Offer in Compro- mlse. the levy balances the need for efficient Because we were unable to accept your collection alternatives, collection with your concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. literally.] [Reproduced On March 24, 2010, petitioner filed the petition commencing this case. In the petition, petitioner alleged: This is not so. I underestimated the housing & I claimed $90 on auto insurance when I she [settlement officer] states I made $4442 a month_an after everything is paid I still have $1402 a month left. utilities below standard [IRS' national and local standards]. really Paid $195.00. I really paid $216.00. I actually payed $978.00 [in taxes]. ance I claimed $36.00 when I paid $52.00. not know what all I could claim, an.how much. there is no way that I would still have $1402 left at the end of ble to make a monthly payment of $200.00 a month, asking. I wish I did. would it be possi- health care I claimed $60.00 when for life insurI just did * * * but just based on my earnings statement the month, [Reproduced literally.] Discussion The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as 19 - ak mat ter of law . Rule 121 ( ) ; Sundstrand Cor'p . v . Commiss ioner i 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), .affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994) . Petitioner does not dispute the existence or the amount of petitioner'. s unpaid 2000 li bility, petitioner' s unpaid 2005 liability, and petitioner's unpaid 2007 liability. In addition, petitioner did not'file a p tition with the Court with respect to the notice of deficiency for pet'itioner s taxable years 2001, 2002, 2003,1and 2004 Where, as is the case here, the validity· of the underlying. tàx liability is not properly placed at issue, the Coûrt will±'review the determination of the Commissioner of Internal. Revenue for; abusevof discretion. .Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C".÷ 604',. 610 (2000); Gaza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182© (2000) . Although not altogether clear, it appears. that petitioner is suggesting in the petition that there is à genuine issue .of material fact regarding the amount of petitioner's monthly expenses.1° In the petition, petitioner alleged 4that the monthly amounts · that hë iclaimed . in petitioner' s Form 433 -A f or - automobile insurance, health insurance, life insurance, and taxes should be revised to $195, $216, $52, and $978, respectively. Petitioner fails to acknowledge that , in detgrmining petitioner's monthly expeáses, t e .settlement officer allowed petitioner the respec- 1°Petitioner does not challenge the settlement officer's determination of his monthly income. - 20 - tive amounts of monthly-expenses for automobile insurance, health insurance, life insurance,. and taxes that he alleged in the petition. Petitioner also alleged in the petition that because the monthly amount (i.e., $946) that he paid for housing and utili- ties is below the. monthly amount for such expenses allowed in the IRS' national and local standards (i.e., $1,048), he should be allowed that higher monthly amount in determining his total monthly expenses. Even if petitioner were allowed $1,048 as the monthly amount for housing and utility expenses, his monthly expenses would total $3,142. Thus, petitioner's monthly net income would total $1,300, and not $1,402 as determined by the settlement officer. Nonetheless, monthly net income of $1,300 is well above the $125 each month that petitioner offered to pay under a proposed installment agreement in order to satisfy the respective liabilities at issue. We conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the questions raised in respondent's motion." "Although we ordered petitioner to file a response to The only respondent's motion, petitioner failed to do so. filings that petitioner made in this case are the petition and the request for place of trial. judgment must set forth specific facts that show a genuine issue of material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations or denials in the pleadings. Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986). The party opposing summary - 21 - Based upon our examination of the.entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse respondent's discretion in making the determinations in the notice of determination with respect.to petitioner's taxable years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007. . We have considered all of the parties' contentions and arguments that are not disc ssed herein, and we find them.to be without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot. On the record before us, we shall grant respondent's motion. To reflect the foregoing, An order granting respondent's motion and decision for respondent will be entered.