TAX COURT OPINION

Case: W. Russell & Teresa Van Camp
Docket Number: 3639-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/15/2008
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D .C . 2021 7 W . RUSSELL AND TERESA VAN CAMP, Petitioners, v . Docket No . 3639-07 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 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 Spokane, Washington on October 22, 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 . December 15, 2008 SERVED DEC 15 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroup a 2 October 22, 2008 Van Camp v . Commissioner 3 Docket No . : 3639-07 L 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the 6 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . These oral findings of fact and opinion 8 shall not be relied upon as precedent in any othe r 9 case . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 11 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 12 All section references are to the Internal Revenu e 13 Code as amended and-in . .effect for 1993, 2000, and 2001 14 as to Petitioner-husband and the year 2000 as t o 15 Petitioner-wife (collectively the years at issue), and .16 all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules o f 17 Practice and Procedure . 18 This is a collection review case involving 19 the filing of a notice of Federal tax levy to collect 20 Petitioners' unpaid tax liability for the years a t 21 issue . 22 Robert E . Kovacevich appeared on behalf of 23 Petitioners, and Catherine Campbell appeared on behalf 24 of Respondent . 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 FINDINGS OF FAC T 2 Certain facts have been stipulated . The 3 stipulation of facts, with accompanying exhibits, are 4 incorporated by this reference . The facts are s o 5 found . 6 Petitioners resided in Washington at th e 7 time they filed the collection review petition in this 8 case . 9 Respondent issued to Petitioner-husband 10 Letters 1058, entitled "Final Notice of Intent to Levy 11 and Your Right to a Hearing," for the outstandin g 12 taxes for'1993, 2000, and 2001 . Respondent also 13 issued to Petitioner-wife a Letter 1058, entitled 14 "Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a 15 Hearing," for the outstanding taxes for 2000 . Th e 16 record is unclear whether a timely Form 12153, Request 17 for a Collection Due process Hearing, was file d 18 bearing Petitioners' original signatures . The parties 19 do not dispute, however, that only the levy action is 20 before this Court with respect to Petitioner-husband'(cid:127)s 21 liability for 1993 and 2001, and with respect t o 22 Petitioners' joint liability for 2000 . The parties 23 further agree that Petitioner-wife has paid in full 24 her income tax liabilities for 1993 and 2001 and that 25 the tax liens have been properly released . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 Petitioners argue at trial that th e 2 settlement officer abused her discretion by failing to 3 account for payments that were made regarding years as 4 far back as 1988 and involving payments by ex-spouses 5 as well as spouses regarding years in which separat e 6 returns were filed . At trial, the Court refused to 7 have Petitioner-husband testify . 8 The'sustained proposed collection action by 9 levy was set forth in a Notice of Determinatio n 10 Concerning Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 11 and/or 6330, dated January 19, 2007 (Determination 12 Notice) . We now determine whether Respondent abused 13 his discretion in upholding the proposed levy action 14 to collect the unpaid taxes . 15 OPINION 16 We begin with our jurisdiction . A notice of 17 determination, upon which the jurisdiction of thi s 18 Court depends in collection due process cases, was 19 issued only to sustain proposed collection on unpaid 20 taxes by levy under section 6330 as to Petitioner- 21 husband for tax years 1993 and 2001 and as to both 22 Petitioners for tax year 2000 . Goza v . Commissioner , 23 114 T .C . 176 (2000) . It therefore follows that we 24 have no jurisdiction to review whether payments made 25 with respect to nondetermination years by othe r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 taxpayers were properly applied . Friele v . 2 Commissioner , 125 T .C . 14, 27 (2005) . Ou r 3 jurisdiction to consider facts and issues i n 4 nondetermination years only extends to the extent the 5 tax liability for the other year may affect the 6 appropriateness of the collection for the 7 determination years . Id . at 30 . We conclude that 8 payments made by ex-spouses and spouses for which 9 separate returns were filed are not before us . 10 Moreover, Petitioners presented no evidence at the 11 hearing to refute the accounting of the payments of 12 tax in the transcripts for the determination years . 13 We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider an y 14 nondetermination year . 15 We next address whether we properly excluded 16 testimony of Petitioner-husband . Our review in a 17 collection review matter sustaining a collectio n 18 action is to determine if there is an adequate basis 19 in law for the settlement officer's determination . 20 Robinette v . Commissioner , 439 F .3d 455 (8th Cir . 21 2006) . This review requires examination of thos e 22 facts and documents before the settlement officer at 23 the time the determination was made. . Id . It follows 24 that an appeals officer cannot abuse any discretion by 25 failing to weigh information that was never eve n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 presented to the appeals officer . Id at 460 (citing 2 Magana v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 488, 493 (2002) . 3 A reviewing court may consider evidence 4 outside the administrative record where there is a 5 "strong showing" of bad faith or improper behavior by 6 the agency decision makers or where there is a failure 7 to explain the administrative action so that judicial 8 review is frustrated . Murphy v . Commissioner , 46 9 9 F .3d 27, 31 (1st Cir . 2006) . Here, there is n o 10 "strong showing" of bad faith or improper behavior by 11 the agency decision makers or a failure to explain the 12 administrative action . Similarly, there is no sudden 13 illness or catastrophe that would constitute a n 14 exception contemplated in Magana . Thus, the record on 15 review is limited to the administrative file in this 16 collection due process review matter . We stand by our 17 ruling to exclude testimony of Petitioner-husband . 18 Overview of Levy Proceedings . If any person 19 liable for Federal tax liability neglects or refuses 20 to make payment within ten days of notice and demand, 21 the Commissioner is authorized to collect the tax by 22 levy on that person's property . See sec . 6331(a) . At 23 least 30 days before enforcing collection by levy on 24 the person's property, the Secretary is obliged t o 25 provide the person with a final notice of intent to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 levy, including notice of the administrative appeals 2 available to the person . See sec . 6331(d) . 3 The person is entitled, upon request, to an 4 administrative review hearing before Appeals . Sec . 5 6330(b)(1) . If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or 6 she may raise at that hearing any relevant issue s 7 relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy . Sec . 8 6330(c)(2) . Relevant issues include any appropriat e 9 spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of 10 collection, and possible alternative means of 11 collection such as an installment agreement or a n 12 offer-in-compromise . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(A) . After the 13 hearing, the Appeals officer is required to make a 14 determination that addresses issues the taxpaye r 15 raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable 16 law and administrative procedures have been met, and 17 balances the need for the efficient collection o f 18 taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that 19 any collection action be no more intrusive tha n 20 necessary . Sec . 6330(c)(3)(C) . 21 The record reflects that the Settlement 22 Officer properly verified that all the legal an d 23 procedural requirements have been met . The Settlement 24 Officer confirmed, using a transcript of Petitioners' 25 accounts, that assessments were properly made for eac h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 of the periods at issue, that appropriate and timely 2 notices were sent regarding the assessments, and that 3 Petitioners were properly informed of their right s 4 with respect to the proposed levy action . 5 The record also reflects that the Settlement 6 Officer addressed what payments were being applied to 7 the determination years . In addition, Petitioner s 8 presented no evidence at the hearing to refute th e 9 accounting of the payments of tax in the transcripts . 10 They have never identified exactly what payments they 11 believe were misapplied so as to affect the balances 12 of the unpaid tax at issue . With the exception of the 13 application of payments issue, no other issues wer e 14 raised in the administrative hearing . Any issue not 15 raised in the hearing is deemed conceded b y 16 Petitioners . In addition, we have frequently and 17 consistently held that it is not an abuse o f 18 discretion for Appeals personnel to refuse to consider 19 collection alternatives where a taxpayer fails to eA Y °y 'l 20 submit requested financial information . Sapp v . 21 Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2006-104 . Finally, th e 22 record reflects that the Settlement Officer properly 23 balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes 24 with Petitioners' legitimate concern that an y 25 collection . be no more intrusive than necessary . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 0 1 Petitioners have not asserted any spousal 2 defenses, challenges to the appropriateness o f 3 collection or offered any collection alternatives . 4 See sec . 6330(c)(2) . Accordingly, these issues are 5 now deemed conceded . Rule 331(b)(4) . 6 Petitioners have not presented any evidence 7 or persuasive arguments to convince us that Respondent 8 abused his discretion . We therefore conclude tha t 9 Respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding 10 the proposed levy action . 11 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 12 entered for Respondent and an appropriate order will 13 be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in 14 the Notice of Determination Concerning Collectio n 15 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated 16 January 19, 2007, upon which this case is based , 17 regarding Petitioner-husband's unpaid liabilities for . 18 1993 and 2001 and Petitioners' joint liability fo r 19 2000 . 20 This concludes the Court's oral findings of- 21 fact and opinion in this case . 22 (Whereupon, at 10 :15 a .m ., the bench opinion 23 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 24 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888