TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Cyrus R. Kashef
Docket Number: 3152-16L
Judge: Nega
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/23/2017
Pages: 7

CZ UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CYRUS R. KASHEF, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 3152-16 L. ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is 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 in the above case before Judge Joseph W. Nega at San Antonio, Texas, on May 4, 2017, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph W. Nega Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 23, 2017 SERVED May 24 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph ,W. Nega May 4, 2017 Cyrus R. Kashef v. Commissioner Docket No. 3152-16L The Court has 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. In this Bench Opinion all citations are to sections, unless otherwise noted, of the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. Petitioner Cyrus R. Kashef appeared pro se. Bryan J. Dotson and Sheila R. Pattison appeared on behalf of the respondent. This case was tried on May 3, 2017, in San Antonio, Texas. Petitioner seeks review, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), of respondent's Notice of 20 Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under 21 22 23 24 25 Section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (notice of determination) that sustained respondent's filing of a Letter 1058, Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing (proposed levy), for tax year 2002. The sole issue for decision is whether 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the proposed levy. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts are stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. 7 Petitioner resided in Texas when the petition was 8 9 10 11 filed. In response to a notice of deficiency for, among other years, tax year 2002, petitioner commenced a prior case, Kashef v. Commissioner, T.C. 12 Dkt. No. 16325-09, for redetermination of the 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 deficiency and additions to tax. On March 30, 2011, the Court entered a stipulated decision that, among other things, stated that petitioner was liable for a deficiency in income tax of $24,956 and additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1), (a)(2), and 6654(a) for tax year 2002. Respondent assessed the deficiency on May 23, 2011. On July 8, 2015, respondent mailed to petitioner the proposed levy with respect to his unpaid income tax liability for 2002. In response petitioner timely submitted Form 12153, Request for a 23 Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. 24 25 Petitioner stated that he is not liable for the deficiency because he was granted a refund but 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 that refund was erroneously denied and that he wished to pursue an offer-in-compromise. On October 13, 2015, an Appeals officer from the Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office 5 mailed to petitioner an acknowledgment letter 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 indicating that she had received petitioner's request for a collection due process (CDP) hearing and scheduling a telephonic hearing for October 27, 2015. The letter stated that in order for the Appeals officer to consider any collection alternative, petitioner should provide the Appeals officer with a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, and, if petitioner wished to submit an offer-in-compromise, a Form 656, Offer in Compromise. Petitioner missed the scheduled conference on October 27, 2015; the parties later held the telephonic conference on December 1, 2015. Petitioner did not submit to respondent the required financial information with respect to any collection alternative. On December 16, 2015, respondent issued to petitioner the notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy. 23 Petitioner timely filed a petition for review of 24 25 respondent's determination. OPINION 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 Section 6331(a) authorizes the Secretary to levy upon property and property rights of a taxpayer liable for taxes who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after notice and demand for payment is made. Section 6331(d) requires the Secretary to send the taxpayer written notice of the Secretary's intent to levy. Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to provide the taxpayer with written notice advising him of his right to a hearing at least 30 days before any levy begins. At the hearing a taxpayer may raise any relevant issue, including challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action and possible collection alternatives. See sec. 6330(c)(2) (A). The taxpayer may also challenge the existence or amount of the underlying liability in an administrative hearing if the taxpayer did not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have a prior opportunity to contest the underlying liability. Sec. 6330(c) (2) (B). This Court considers a taxpayer's challenge to the underlying liability in a collection action only if it is properly raised-at the administrative hearing. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 115-116 (2007); sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner received a notice of deficiency for tax year 2002 and timely filed a petition with this Court (T.C. Dkt. No. 16325-09) contesting the associated deficiency and additions to tax. Accordingly, petitioner cannot challenge the underlying liability. Where, as here, the underlying liability is not properly at issue, we review the Appeals 9 officer's determination for abuse of discretion. Goza 10 11 12 13 14 v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). In order to prevail, petitioner must establish that the issuance of the notice of determination that sustained the proposed levy constituted an abuse of discretion by showing that the action of the Appeals 15 Office was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 basis in fact or law. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111 (2007). Taxpayers are to provide all relevant information requested by Appeals. Sec. 301.6330-1(e)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner has not advanced any argument nor set forth any specific fact that would allow us to conclude that the Appeals Office erred in its determination. Petitioner did not submit to respondent the required financial information with respect to any 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 collection alternative (including an offer-in- compromise), and therefore the Appeals officer's determination to sustain the proposed levy was not an abuse of discretion under these circumstances. See 5 Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. at 115-116. A 6 7 8 review of the administrative record indicates that the Appeals officer verified that (1) the CDP hearing was conducted by an officer or an employee who had no 9 prior involvement, per section 6330(b)(3); (2) the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure were met; and (3) the Appeals officer properly balanced the need for the efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary, Accordingly, a decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. In reaching our holdings herein, we have considered all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not mentioned above, find those arguments are moot, irrelevant, or 22 without merit. (Whereupon, at 8:57 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com