TAX COURT OPINION

Case: David E. Tyson
Docket Number: 25390-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/13/2010
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 2021 7 DAVID E . TYSON, Petitioner , V . Docket No . 25390-08 L 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 to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at San Francisco, California, on April 21, 2010, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judg e Date : Washington, D .C . May 13, 2010 SERVED MAY 18 20.10 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa April 21, 2010 2 David E . Tyson v . Commissioner Docket No . 25390-08L 3 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 7 These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not 8 be relied upon as precedent in any other case . This benc h 9 opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 10 7459(b) and Rule 152 . All section references are to th e 11 Internal Revenue Code for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 12 2005, the years at issue, and all rule references are to the 13 Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure . 14 This is a collection review case involving a 15 proposed levy to collect Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 16 the six taxable years at issue . This collection revie w 17 matter is before the Court on Respondent's motion fo r 18 summary judgment filed on February 16th, 2010 . Petitioner 19 did not file an objection or response to Respondent' s 20 motion, nor did Petitioner appear at the hearing o n 21 Respondent's motion or provide a Rule 50(c) statement in 22 lieu of attending the hearing in San Francisco, California, 23 on April 19th, 2010 . 24 Nicholas Doukas appeared on behalf of Respondent . 25 II Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 FINDINGS OF FAC T 2 The record establishes or the parties do not 3 dispute the following : 4 Petitioner resided in .California at the time he 5 filed the collection review petition in this case . 6 Petitioner did not timely file a return for the six years at 7 issue . The Commissioner prepared a substitute return fo r 8 Petitioner for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, based 9 upon information from third-party payors . Petitioner filed 10 a return for 2004 and 2005, and amended returns for al l 11 other years at issue in 2007 . 12 Respondent assessed Petitioner the amount o f 13 unpaid taxes reflected on the returns as well as penalties 14 and interest . Petitioner failed to pay the assessed amounts 15 and Respondent issued Petitioner a final notice, notice of 16 intent to levy and your right to a hearing, for th e 17 outstanding tax liabilities, penalties, and interest for the 18 years at issue . This notice shall be referred to as th e 19 levy notice . 20 Petitioner requested a hearing in response to the 21 levy notice . Petitioner provided no stated reason for the 22 hearing request, however ; he merely checked the collection 23 alternative boxes on the request form without challenging 24 the underlying tax liability for any of the six years a t 25 issue . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 The settlement officer assigned to Petitioner' s 2 hearing asked Petitioner to complete a form 433-A, entitled 3 Collection Information Statement, and provide complete d 4 federal income tax returns for 2006 and 2007 . The 5 settlement officer also mailed Petitioner a lette r 6 scheduling a phone conference . Petitioner failed to 7 participate in the scheduled phone conference . Th e 8 settlement officer mailed Petitioner a letter discussing 9 Petitioner's failure to participate in the schedule d 10 telephonic conference and asking that Petitioner promptly 11 mail all information that Petitioner wanted the settlement 12 officer to consider . 13 Petitioner failed to present the settlemen t 14 officer with the requested information or any collection 15 alternatives . The settlement officer mailed Petitioner 16 another letter stating the settlement officer would b e 17 unable to consider any collection alternatives if Petitioner 18 failed to provide the necessary information . Petitione r 19 persisted in failing to provide the requested financial 20 information to the settlement officer . Consequently, the 21 settlement officer sustained the proposed collection actio n 22 by levy in a notice of determination concerning collectio n 23 actions under section 6320 and/or 6330, dated September 8th, 24 2008 . Petitioner timely filed a petition, yet made vagu e 25 and irrelevant statements in the petition that he had healt h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 issues and had ben unable to work . Petitioner asserte d 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 that he needs more time to file an offer-in-compromise . This case was p reviousl y c nti o nue d fro m th e t r a li session t o commence September 21st, 2009 , in San Francisco , Californi a . As previously stated, Respondent filed a summary judgment motion on February 16th , 2010 . Petitione r failed to file a response to Respondent's motion and faile d to attend the hearing on Respondent ' s motion in Sa n Francisco , California . Respondent ' s counsel has repeatedl y called Pet itioner at the telephone number listed on th e petition , leaving messages each time, and mailed him letter s to the add ress listed on the petition . To date , Petitioner has not responded . OPINION We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment in this collection review ma tter where Petitione r has failed to raise any arguments or provide any necessary documentat ion . Summary judgment is intended to expedit e litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials . See , e .g ., FPL Group , Inc . v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 7 4 ( 20 1 0 ) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted i f the pleadings , answers to interrogatories, depositions , admissions and other acceptable materials , together with th e affidavits , if any, show that there is no genuine issue a s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as 2 a matter of law . See Rule 121 ( b) ; Elect . Arts, Inc . v 3 Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226 , 238 (2002) . 4 The moving party has the burden of proving that no 5 genuine issue of material fact exists and that it i s 6 entitled to judgment as a matter of law . See, e .g ., 7 Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 162 (2002) . 8 The party opposing summary judgment must set forth 9 specific facts that show that a genuine question of material 10 fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations o r 11 denials in the pleadings . Casanova Co . v, Commissioner , 87 12 T .C . 214, 217 ( 1986) . 13 We begin with the standard of review . Where the 14 validity of the underlying tax liability is properly a t 15 issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis . 16 Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604 , 610 (2000) . 17 Where, as is the case here, the validity of the 18 underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, 19 the Court will review Respondent ' s determination for abuse 20 of discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , supra ; Goza v . 21 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181, 182 ( 2000) . 22 We must decide whether Respondent exercised hi s 23 discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis 24 in fact or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 25 23 ( 1999) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 Based upon our examination of the entire record 2 before us, we find that Respondent did not abuse hi s 3 discretion in determining that the collection action should 4 proceed with respect to Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 5 the six years at issue . The record reflects .that th e 6 settlement officer properly verified that all the legal and 7 procedural requirements had been met . The settlement 8 officer confirmed, using a'transcript of Petitioner' s 9 accounts, that assessments were properly made for the years 10 at issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sen t 11 regarding the assessments, and that Petitioner was properly 12 informed of his rights with respect to the levy action . 13 Petitioner failed to participate in the scheduled 14 phone conference, submit any documents, or otherwise 15 communicate with the settlement officer . Petitioner 16 presented neither a form 433-A nor his federal income tax 17 returns for 2006 or 2007, as requested by the settlement 18 officer . We have frequently and consistently held that an 19 officer does not abuse any discretion if the taxpayer fails 20 to submit the required and requested information . Kendricks 21 v . Commissioner , 124 T .C . 69, 79 (2005) . 22 Moreover, Petitioner is precluded from challenging 23 the underlying liability for any of the six years at issue 24 in the Tax Court, because he failed to raise them during the 25 CDP hearing, he failed to raise any issues in the petition , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 and he failed to participate in this collection revie w 2 matter . Giamelli v . Commissioner , 129 T .C . 107, 115 (2007) ; 3 Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 183 (2001) . 4 Petitioner has not presented any evidence o r 5 persuasive arguments to convince us that Respondent abused 6 his discretion . We therefore conclude that Respondent did 7 not abuse his discretion in upholding Respondent's propose d 8 collection action to collect from Petitioner outstanding ta x 9 liabilities for the years at issue . 10 To reflelt the foregoing, decision will be entered 11 for Respondent and an appropriate order will be issue d 12 sustaining the determination set forth in the notice of 13 determination concerning collection actions under sectio n 14 6320 and/or 6330, dated September 8th, 2008, upon which this 15 case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilities for 2000 , 16 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 . The order will also grant 17 Respondent's motion for summary judgment filed Februar y 18 16th, 2010, regarding the six years at issue . 19 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 20 and opinion in this case . 21 (Whereupon, at 9 :37 a .m ., the bench opinion in the 22 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 23 // 2 4 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888