TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ray Lohrasbi
Docket Number: 27176-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/10/2011
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CLC RAY LOHRASBI, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 27176-09 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. 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 the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Kroupa at Los Angeles, California on December 2, 2010, containing her oral the hearing on respondent' s Motion for Summary Judgment . the pages of findings of the trial of the above case before Judge Diane L. fact and opinion rendered after In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order and decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 10, 2011 SERVED Jan 11 2011 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 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa December 2, 2010 Ray Lohrasbi v. Commissioner Docket No. 27176-09L THE COURT: THE COURT RAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted in section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal-Revenue Code unless otherwise indicated and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Ray Lohrasbi appeared pro se, and Sarah Herson appeared on behalf of respondent. This is a collection review case involving the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien, and this collection review matter-is before the Court on respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment filed October 18, 2010. The Court heard oral arguments on November 30, 2010, in Los Angeles, California. - FINDINGS OF FACT The record reflects or the parties do not Heritage Reporting Corporation (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 dispute the following facts. . Petitioner resided in Studio City, California at the time he filed the petition in this case. Petitioner filed a return for 2006 but failed to pay all of the liability reported on the return. Respondent assessed the amount shown on the return. Petitioner entered into an installment agreement with respondent for repayment of the outstanding liability for 2006. During the process of establishing the installment agreement, respondent's revenue agent determined that the filing of a Federal tax lien was proper because petitioner's account balance exceeded $25,000. The revenue agent notified petitioner that a tax lien would be filed. Respondent sent petitioner a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under Section 6320" (lien notice ) advising petitioner that a Federal tax lien had been filed with respect to the unpaid liability for 2006, and that petitioner could receive a hearing with respondent's Appeals office. Petitioner timely requested a collection hearing with Appeals. The Appeals officer assigned to Heritage Reporting Corporation (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 5 petitioner's case sent petitioner a letter scheduling a telephonic hearing. The letter also explained that, even though an installment agreement had been established for petitioner's outstanding liability for 2006, the tax lien was properly filed because petitioner's account balance exceeded $25,000. The letter further explained that the lien would not be withdrawn until petitioner's account was paid in full or until the time to collect had expired. At the collection hearing, petitioner requested that the lien be withdrawn because he had been misinformed by respondent's personnel whether a tax lien would be filed. He also requested that the tax lien be withdrawn because it would have a serious impact on his ability to earn an income and may affect his insurance license. Petitioner did not provide any additional information indicating that withdrawal of the lien pursuant to section 6323(j) should be considered. Petitioner also did not challenge the existence or amount of the liabilities. After the collection hearing, the Appeals officer sent petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (determination notice) sustaining the filing of the Federal tax lien for 2006. The Appeals Heritage Reporting Corporation (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 officer determined that filing of the lien was proper and that there*were no grounds for withdrawing the lien pursuant to sec. 6323(j). Petitioner timely filed a petition with this 6 Court. OPINION We are asked to decide whether respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the Federal tax lien filing. Petitioner agrees that respondent did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the Federal tax lien. He also admits his tax liability, and he acknowledges that respondent properly sustained the tax lien filing. He urges respondent and the Court, however, to not only withdraw the lien but to remove it from his records entirely because it negatively affects his credit rating. We first focus on whether any legal ground exists for respondent to withdraw the lien. We acknowledge that the Commissioner may withdraw the lien where the taxpayer has entered into an installment agreement to satisfy the liability for which the lien was imposed. Sec. 6323(j) (1). Nevertheless, the Commissioner may sustain the filing of a Federal tax lien where it is necessary to protect the government's interest against other creditors, Heritage Reporting Corporation (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 7 even if an installment agreement is in effect. See sec. 301.6326(j)-1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs., IRS Publication 594, What You Should Know About the IRS Collection Process. At the time the installment agreement was being finalized, respondent's revenue agent determined that the filing of a tax lien was proper because petitioner's account balance exceeded $25,000. No condition exists to authorize respondent to withdraw the lien. Petitioner was adequately informed that the lien would be filed and that he could avoid the lien filing if he paid the tax liability in full. We must also deny petitioner's unique request to remove- the tax lien entirely from his record because it negatively reflects against his credit rating. Petitioner cites no authority that authorizes us or respondent to remove the lien entirely. Our jurisdiction under section 6330 is generally limited to reviewing whether a proposed collection action is proper. Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-152. We generally have no authority to grant relief to a taxpayer's claim that filing the lien adversely affected that taxpayer's credit rating. Gerakios v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-203. Petitioner seeks redress that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 neither we nor respondent has authority to grant. Thus, having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that the filing of the lien here was . appropriate regarding petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for 2006. We therefore shall grant respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on October 18, 2010. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION (Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // / // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888