TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Koo-Hyun & Ok-Sun Kim
Docket Number: 21702-05L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/19/2008
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 SER, KOO-HYUN & OK - SUN KIM, Petitioners , v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . 41 . JUDGE r7NeQ 5 F 1 r L ELE Docket No . 21702-05 L 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 herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at San Antonio, Texas on October 15, 2008, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Diane L . Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . November 19, 2008 SERVED NOV 19 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Kroupa October 15, 2008 2 Kim v . Commissioner Docket No . 21702-05 L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 4 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 5 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 6 fact and opinion . These oral findings of fact an d 7 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 8 other case . 9 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 10 authority granted in § 7459(b) and Rule 152 . Al l 11 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as 12 amended and in effect for the years at issue as later 13 defined, and all rule references are to the Tax Court 14 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 15 This is a collection review case that has 16 languished for years relating to tax liabilities from 17 1993, 1994, 1995, 2001 and 2002 (collectively th e 18 years at issue) . This collection review case involves 19 the filing of a notice of federal tax lien and a 20 proposed levy action . 21 Mr . Koo-Hyun Kim appeared on his own behalf . 22 Bruce Wilpon appeared on behalf of the Respondent . 23 Findings of Fact . Certain facts have been 24 stipulated . The stipulation of facts with 25 accompanying exhibits is incorporated by this Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 reference . The facts are so found . 2 Petitioners resided in Texas at the time 3 they filed the petition in this case . Petitioner s 4 timely filed a federal income tax return for each of 5 the years at issue . 6 Respondent sent Petitioners a deficienc y 7 notice on August 15, 1995, proposing tax liabilities 8 for the tax years 1992, 1993 and 1994 . Responden t 9 also sent Petitioners a deficiency notice o n 10 October 22, 1997, proposing tax liabilities for the 11 tax year 1995 . Petitioners failed to file a petition 12 to contest the deficiencies . 13 Respondent sent Petitioners a Final Notice - 14 Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a 15 Hearing advising Petitioners that Respondent intended 16 to levy to collect the unpaid taxes for 2002 . 17 Respondent also sent Petitioners a Notice of Federal 18 Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing unde r 19 Section 6320, advising Petitioners that a lien had 20 been filed with respect to their unpaid liabilities 21 for each of the years at issue . 22 Petitioners timely filed a request for a 23 hearing with Appeals by submitting Form 12153, Request 24 for a Collection Due Process Hearing . The hearin g 25 request covered each of the years at issue . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 Petitioners explained in their hearing 2 request that they did not want their hearing i n 3 California because it deprived them of a face-to-face 4 hearing with an appeals officer, they did not owe any 5 taxes and were due a refund of taxes, that actions the 6 Commissioner took were unconstitutional and certain 7 named employees of the Commissioner should be removed 8 from office . 9 Respondent's Fresno Appeals Office issued a 10 notice of determination dated October 11, 2005 , 11 upholding the lien and levy actions for all tax years 12 at issue . The Court granted Respondent's motion to 13 remand the case to the Austin Appeals Office so that 14 Petitioners could have a face-to-face hearing . 15 Respondent's Austin Appeals Office issued 16 Petitioners a supplemental notice of determination on 17 January 19, 2007, upholding the lien and levy actions 18 for all the years at issue . 19 Petitioners maintain that they have no taxes 20 due for the tax years at issue and in fact ar e 21 entitled to refunds of any monies offset from other 22 tax periods . Petitioners have never identified the 23 items of income, deduction or credit or th e 24 computations that are incorrect for any of the years 25 at issue . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Petitioners timely filed a petition with 2 this Court requesting that we review whethe r 3 Respondent abused his discretion in deciding to 4 sustain the lien filing and collection by levy . 5 Opinion . We begin with the standard o f 6 review . Where, as is the case here, the validity o f 7 the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at 8 issue, the Court will review Respondent' s 9 determination for abuse of discretion . Sego v . 10 11 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 37"' , 181-182 (2000) . 12 We must decide whether Respondent exercised 13 his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or without 14 sound basis in fact or law . See Woodral v . 15 Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) . 16 We now give an overview of collectio n 17 proceedings . Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of 18 the United States on all property and rights t o 19 property of a taxpayer when demand for payment of that 20 person's liability for taxes has been made and the 21 person fails to pay those taxes . 22 The lien arises when the assessment is made 23 and continues until the tax liability is satisfied or 24 the statute of limitations bars enforcement of th e 25 lien . Sec . 6322 ; Iannone v . Commissioner , 122 T .C . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 287, 293 (2004) . 2 If the taxpayer fails to pay the tax, the 3 Commissioner files a lien with the appropriate state 4 office to validate the lien against any purchaser , 5 holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor or 6 judgment creditor . See § 6323(a) ; Lindsay v . 7 Commissioner , T .C . Memo 2001-285 . 8 Section 6323(a) requires the filing of a 9 notice of federal tax lien to make the lien vali d 10 against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, 11 mechanic's lienor or judgment lien creditor . Behling 12 v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 572, 575 (2002) . 13 Section 6320 provides that the Secretary 14 shall furnish the taxpayer described in § 6321 with 15 written notice that a lien was filed . The person may 16 then request administrative review of the matter in 17 the form of an Appeals Office hearing . The Appeals 18 Office hearing generally shall be conducted in a 19 manner consistent with the procedures set forth in e 20 § 6330 (c), (d) and (N) . 'ot Sec . 6320(c) . 21 If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or 22 she may raise at that hearing any relevant issues 23- relating to the unpaid taxes or the propose d 24 collection action . Sec . 6330(c)(2) . Relevant issues 25 include appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 the appropriateness of collection and possibl e 2 alternative means of collection such as an installment 3 agreement or an offer in compromise . Sec . 4 6330 (c) (2) (A) . 5 After the hearing, the appeals officer i s 6 required to make a determination that addresses issues 7 the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of 8 applicable law and administrative procedures have been 9 met and balances the need for the efficient collection 10 of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person 11 that any collection action be no more intrusive than 12 necessary . Sec . 6330 (c) (3) (C) . 13 The appeals officer properly verified that 14 legal and procedural requirements have been met . The 15 appeals officer confirmed, using a transcript o f 16 Petitioners' accounts, that assessments were properly 17 made for each of the years at issue, that appropriate 18 and timely notices were sent regarding the assessments 19 and that Petitioners were properly informed of their, 20 rights with respect to the lien and levy . 21 Petitioners have not raised any challenges 22 to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert 23 any spousal defenses or otherwise offer any collection 24 alternatives . See § 6330(c)(2) . Accordingly, these 25 issues are now deemed conceded . Rule 331(b)(4) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 Petitioners have not presented any evidence 2 or persuasive arguments to convince us that Respondent 3 abused his discretion . We therefore conclude that the 4 Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion i n 5 upholding the collection action regarding th e 6 outstanding income tax liabilities for each of the 7 years at issue . 8 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 9 entered for Respondent and an appropriate order will 10 be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in 11 the Supplemental Notice of Determination Concerning 12 Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 633 0 13 dated January 19, 2007, upon which this case is based, 14 regarding the unpaid tax liabilities for the year s 15 1993, 1994, 1995, 2001 and 2002 . 16 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 17 fact and opinion in this case . 18 (Whereupon, at 1 :19 p .m . the bench opinion 19 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 / / / / / / / / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888