TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Philip A. Wistner
Docket Number: 9593-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/18/2010
Pages: 11

C.'A .V, - K~OU. oR 9VV UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 2021 7 PHILIP A . WISTNER , Petitioner , V . Docket No . 95 P3-09 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules-of Prac ice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transm't to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of e transcript of the proceedings of the above case befot r Judge Diane L . Kroupa at San Francisco, California, on Apri 20, 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 Judge Date : Washington, D .C .. May 18, 2010 SERVED MAY 19 2010 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa April 20, 201 0 2 Philip A . Wistner v . Commissioner Docke t . 9593-09 L 3 3 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to r nder ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and t e following 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact an d opinion . 7 These oral findings of fact and opinio shall not 8 be relied upon as precedent in any other case . his bench 9 opinion is made pursuant to the authority grant e in section 10 7459(b) and Rule 152 . All section references a r to th e 11 Internal Revenue Code, as amended , and in effec t for the 12 time periods at issue, and all rule references a e to th e 13 Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure . 14 This is a collection review case invo l ing the 15 proposed levy to collect Petitioner's employmen t tax 16 liabilities and Federal Unemployment Tax Act, F U A, tax 17 liabilities for the taxable periods at issue . 18 The Court held a hearing on Responden t s motion 19 for summary judgment and Respondent's motion to ermit levy, 20 both filed on March 16th, 2010, at the Court's t dal sessio n 21 on April 19th, 2010, in San Francisco , Californ i 22 Lesley Hale appeared on behalf of Res p ndent . 23 Neither Petitioner nor his counsel appeared at t ,e calendar 24 call or at the hearing . In addition, neither o f the m 25 submitted a Rule 50(c) statement in lieu of atte ding th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 hearing, nor did either of them file a response or objection 2 to Respondent's two motions as directed by the Court in a n 3 order dated March 19th, 2010 . 4 FINDINGS OF FACT 5 The record establishes the following, r the 6 parties do not dispute the following : 7 Petitioner resided in California at th time h e 8 filed the petition . 9 Petitioner failed to file form 941, employer's 10 quarterly federal tax return, for the four quarters each 11 year from 2000 through and including 2004 . These taxable 12 periods include March 31st, 2000 ; June 30, 2000 ; September 13 30, 2000 ; December 31st, 2000 ; March 31st, 2001 ; June 30, 14 2001 ; September 30, 2001 ; December 31st, 2001 ; March 31st, 15 2002 ; June 30, 2002 ; September 30, 2002 ; December 31, 2002 ; 16 March 31, 2003 ; June 30, 2003 ; September 30, 2003 ; December 17 31st, 2003 ; March 31st, 2004 ; June 30, 2004, September 30, 18 2004 ; and December 31st, 2004 . 19 Respondent filed substitutes for return for all 20 these quarterly taxable periods on March 9, 2007 . 21 Respondent assessed the tax deficiencies, additi ns to tax, 22 and penalties for all these quarterly taxable periods on 23 July 2nd, 2007 . 24 Petitioner failed to file form 940, employer's 25 annual federal unemployment tax return, for taxable year s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 . Respondent file d 2 substitutes for return for these annual periods on March 3 9th, 2007 . Respondent assessed the FUTA tax deficiencies , 4 additions to tax, and penalties for all these annual taxabl e 5 periods on July 2nd, 2007 . 6 Respondent issued to Petitioner a lett er entitled 7 Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a 8 Hearing, dated May 7, 2008, for the outstanding employment 9 tax liabilities, the FUTA tax liabilities, int e est , 10 additions to tax, and penalties for the taxable periods at 11 issue . 12 Petitioner timely requested a hearing in response 13 to the levy notice . In his hearing request, Petitioner did 14 not contest the liability for the unpaid tax amounts . 15 Instead, he requested an offer-in-compromise as a collectio n 16 alternative . 17 The settlement officer assigned to Petitioner's 18 hearing scheduled a telephonic conference with etitioner 19 and requested specific documents from Petitione . These 20 documents included financial information regardin g 21 Petitioner individually as well as any business entities in 22 which Petitioner held an interest . Petitioner as als o 23 required to be current with all filing and paymen t 24 requirements for 2005, 2006, and 2007 . The settlemen t 25 officer informed Petitioner that he could not consider an y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 collection alternatives without the requested documents . 2 Petitioner did not provide the settlement officer 3 with the requested documents, nor did he contact th e 4 settlement officer at the time scheduled for the telephonic 5 hearing . Petitioner chose not to respond to the settlement 6 officer or participate in the telephonic hearin . 7 Apparently Petitioner assumed there was nothing further he 8 could do or say to avoid the outstanding emplo ent tax 9 liabilities, and FUTA tax liabilities . 10 Without any additional information fro m 11 Petitioner, the settlement officer sustained the lien action 12 and the proposed collection action by levy, in notice of 13 determination concerning collection actions under sectio n 14 6320 and/or 6330, dated August 9th, 2007 . 15 As previously stated, Respondent filed a summary 16 judgment motion and a motion to permit levy . Petitioner 17 failed to file a response or attend the hearing on the two 18 motions or provide a Rule 50(c) statement in lieu o f 19 attending the hearing . 20 OPINION 21 We are asked to decide whether to grant summary 22 judgment . Summary judgment is intended to expedit e 23 litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials . See, 24 e .g ., FPL Group Inc . v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 7 4 25 (2001) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 A motion for summary judgment will be ranted if 2 the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions , 3 admissions, and other acceptable materials, together wit h 4 the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue 5 as to any material fact, and that a decision may be rendered 6 as a matter of law . See Rule 121(b) ; Electric Arts, Inc . v . 7 Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 (2002) . 8 The moving party has the burden of pro- 9 genuine issue of material fact exists and that i 10 entitled to judgment as a matter of law . See, e 11 Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 162 ( 2 12 The party opposing summary judgment mu~t set forth . 13 specific facts that show that a genuine question of materia l 14 fact exists, and may not rely merely on allegati ns o r 15 denials in the pleadings . Casanova Co . v . Commi sioner, 87 16 T .C . 214, 217 (1986) . 17 We begin with the standard of review . Where the 18 validity of the underlying tax liability is prop rly a t 19 issue, the Court will review the matter on a de ovo basis . 20 Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) . 21 Where, as is the case here, the validi y of the 22 underlying tax liability is not properly placed t issue , 23 the Court will review Respondent's determination for abuse 24 of discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , su ra ; Goz v . 25 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181, 182 (2000) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 We must decide whether Respondent exercised hi s 2 discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, and without sound 3 basis in fact or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner, 112 T .C . 4 19, 23 (1999) . 5 Based upon our examination of the entire record 6 before us, we find that Respondent did not abuse hi s 7 discretion in determining that the collection action should 8 proceed with respect to Petitioner's unpaid employment tax 9 liabilities, FUTA tax liabilities, interest, additions to 10 tax, and penalties for the taxable periods at issue . 11 We turn now to our overview of the lev y 12 proceedings . If any person liable for federal tax liability 13 neglects or refuses to make payment within 10 days of notice 14 and demand, the Commissioner is authorized to collect th e 15 tax by levy on that person's property . See sec . 6331(a) . 16 At least 30 days before enforcing collection by 17 levy on the person's property, the Secretary is obliged to 18 provide the person with a final notice of intent to levy, 19 including notice of the administrative appeals available to 20 the person . See sec . 6331(d) . 21 The person is entitled, upon request, :o an 22 administrative review hearing before appeals . Sec . 23 6330(b)(1) . 24 If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or she may 25 raise at that hearing any relevant issues relati g to the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 unpaid tax or the proposed levy . Sec . 6330(c) ( 2 Relevant issues include any appropriate spousa l 3 defense, challenges to the appropriateness of c llection, 4 and alternative means of collection, such as an installment 5 agreement or an offer-in-compromise . Sec . 6330( c) (2) (A) . 6 After the hearing, the appeals officer is required 7 to make a determination that addresses issues th e taxpayer 8 raised, verifies that all requirements of applic able law and 9 administrative procedures have been met, and balances the 10 need for the efficient collection of taxes with th e 11 legitimate concern of the person that any collection action 12 be no more intrusive than necessary . Sec . 6330(c)(3)(C) . 13 The record reflects that the settlement officer 14 properly verified that all the legal and procedura l 15 requirements have been met . The settlement office r 16 confirmed, using a transcript of Petitioner's accounts, that 17 assessments were properly made for each of the periods a t 18 issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sen t 19 regarding the assessments, and that Petitioner was properly 20 informed of his rights with respect to the proposed levy 21 action . 22 The record also reflects that Petitioner never 23 presented any financial information for Respondent t o 24 evaluate any collection alternatives . We have f equently 25 and consistently held that an officer does not a use any Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 10 1 discretion by refusing to consider collection a ternative s 2 if the taxpayer fails to submit the required anc requeste d 3 financial information . Sapp v . Commissioner , T . C . Memo 4 2006-104 . 5 Finally, the record reflects that the ettlement 6 officer properly balanced the need for efficient collection 7 of taxes with Petitioner's legitimate concern th t any 8 collection be no more intrusive than necessary . Petitioner 9 has not asserted any spousal defenses or otherwi e offered 10 any collection alternatives . See sec . 6330(c)(2 . 11 Accordingly, these issues are now deem d conceded . 12 Rule 331 (b) (4) . 13 Petitioner has not presented any evide ce o r 14 persuasive arguments to convince us that-Respond nt abused 15 his discretion . We therefore conclude that the ettlement 16 officer did not abuse his discretion in upholdi n 17 Respondent's levy action to collect Petitioner's employment 18 tax liabilities and FUTA tax liabilities for the taxabl e 19 periods at issue . 20 We now address Respondent's motion to ermit levy . 21 The Commissioner may not proceed with collection by levy if 22 an administrative hearing is timely requested un er section 23 6330(a)(3)(B) and while any appeals from such ad inistrative 24 hearing are pending . Collection by levy may be ermitted, 25 however, where a person's underlying tax liabili .y is not a t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 11 1 issue in the appeal and the Court determines th t good cause 2 is shown not to suspend the levy . Sec . 6330(e) 2) . 3 The Commissioner may show good cause he procedure as 4 here, the taxpayer has used the collection revi :w rocedur e 5 to espouse groundless arguments and otherwise nE edlessly 6 delay collection . Burke v . Commissioner , 124 T . C . 18 9 7 (2005) . 8 The purpose of the collection due proces s 9 statutes, sections 6320 and 6330, is to provide axpayers 10 with a forum to raise relevant issues with respe t t o 11 proposed levy and lien notices . Id . 12 Petitioner is not using the statutes fbr thi s 13 purpose ; rather, Petitioner is using the statute solely as 14 a mechanism to delay collection . Petitioner req ested a CDP 15 hearing but never participated . He also never povided th e 16 documents requested to the settlement officer . etitioner 17 also filed a petition but failed to properly pro ecute it 18 before this Court . Petitioner never filed a res onse or 19 objection to Respondent's two motions, never att nded the 20 scheduled hearing on the two motions, and did no submit a 21 Rule 50(c) statement in lieu of attending the he ring o n 22 Respondent's two motions . 23 Petitioner and his counsel also failed to compl y 24 with the Court's procedures and directives . Wit out relief 25 from the collection stay, Petitioner's subversio of th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 1 statutes will continue until final judicial appeals hav e 2 been exhausted . We find therefore that Respondent ha s 3 established good cause for the Court to issue an order 4 permitting levy under section 6330(e)(2) . 5 Accordingly , we will grant Respondent ' motion to 6 permit levy . 7 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered 8 for Respondent and an appropriate order will be issue d 9 granting Respondent ' s motion for summary judgment and 10 Respondent ' s motion to permit levy . 11 This concludes the Court ' s oral findings of fact 12 and opinion in this case . 13 (Whereupon , at 1 :01 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 14 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888