TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Nigel P. & Lydia P. Rajadurai
Docket Number: 23762-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/23/2009
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC . 2021 7 NIGEL P . AND LYDIA P . RAJADURAI , Petitioners , V . Docket No . 23762-08 S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent. 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 petitttioners and to respondent a . copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Atlanta,, Georgia, on October 21, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . i In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . November 23, 2009 SERVED NOV 2 4 2009 d b 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o 2 Docket Number 23762-08 S October 21, 200 9 2 3 Rajadurai v . Commissioner 4 5 The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact 6 and opinion in this case, and the following represents .7 the Court's oral finding .of fact and opinion : 8 Section references contained in this bench 9 opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 10 amended, in effect for the relevant period . Rul e 11 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 12 Procedure . 13 This section 6330(d) proceeding was 14 conducted as a Small Tax case pursuant to th e 15 provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175 . 16 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority 17 granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 18 This case before the Court on Respondent's 19 motion for summary judgment filed December 18, 2009 . 20 Petitioners' objection to Respondent's motion wa s 21 filed February 9, 2009 . A hearing was conducted on 22 Respondent's motion on October 19, 2009, in Atlanta, 23 Georgia . Jennifer K . Martwick appeared on behalf of 24 Respondent and argued in support of the motion . There 25 was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioners . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-488 8 3 1 Giving due regard to the representations 2 made in Respondent's motion as well as th e 3 representations contained in Petitioners' objection to 4 that motion, the Court is satisfied that there are no 5 genuine issues as to any material facts in this case . 6 Consequently, disposition of the case upon summary 7 adjudication is appropriate . Rule 121(b) ; Sundstrand 8 Corp . v . Commissioner , 98 T .C . 518, 520 (1992) affd . 9 17 F .3d 965 (7th Cir . 1994) . 10 In a notice of determination concerning 11 collection action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330, 12 dated August 26, 2008, Respondent determined that with 13 respect to Petitioners' outstanding Federal income tax 14 liabilities for 2002, 200.3, and 2004, the Notice o f 15 Federal Tax Lien, issued January 24, 2008 (the NFTL), 16 was "filed appropriately . " 17 Petitioners do snot challenge the existence 18 or the amounts of the underlying liabilities . 19 Instead, they claim Respondent's determination to 20 sustain the filing of the NFTL is an abuse o f 21 discretion . 22 As best as can be determined from their 23 petition and their objection to Respondent's motion, 24 Petitioners take the position that the NFTL should not 25 have been filed while their offer-in-compromise fo r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 the above-referenced years was pending . Petitioners 2 are simple wrong on the point . In general, the 3 Commissioner is not precluded from filing a notice of 4 Federal tax lien while a taxpayer's offer-in- 5 compromise is pending, and Respondent was not 6 precluded from doing so in this case . For a 7 discussion on the point see Hult v . Commissioner , T .C . 8 Memo . 2007-302 . 9 Petitioners do not contend that Respondent 10 has otherwise failed to satisfy his obligations under 11 section 6320 and/or section 6330 and nothing in the 12 record suggests that there were any such failures . 13 For the reasons set forth more fully in the 14 transcript of the proceedings, as well as for th e 15 reasons set forth in Respondent's motion, Respondent's 16 motion will be granted . 17 To reflect the foregoing an appropriate 18 order and decision will be entered . 19 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 20 fact and opinion in this case . 21 (Whereupon, at 1 :10 p .m ., the bench opinion 22 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 23 // 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888