TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert C. Billar
Docket Number: 1318-12S
Judge: Laro
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/08/2013
Pages: 10

CLC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ROBERT C. BILLAR, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 1318-12S. ) ) ) ) ) OR 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge David Laro, at Phoenix, Arizona, on December 10, 2012, 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, an Order and Decision granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment will be entered in this case. (Signed) David Laro Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 8, 2013 SERVED Feb 12 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge David Laro December 10, 2012 3 Robert C. Billar v. Commissioner 4 5 Docket No. 1318-12S THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 6 Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case, and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the following are the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463. Pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 Petitioner refers to Robert C. Billar, SO Carmouche 19 refers to Settlement Officer Angela Carmouche, SO 20 Nesbitt refers to Settlement Officer Theresa Nesbitt, 21 22 IRS refers to the Internal Revenue Service, and Appeals refers to the IRS Office of Appeals. 23 Petitioner resided in Arizona when he filed the petition. 24 25 Presently before the Court is respondent's 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 motion for summary judgment under Rule 121. The 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court ordered petitioner to respond to the motion, but he failed to do so. The record reveals there is no genuine dispute of material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. We shall grant respondent's motion for summary judgment and will issue an Order and Decision accordingly. Background Petitioner and his then wife, Cynthia Leyh, timely filed a joint Federal income tax return for 2006 but did not fully satisfy the tax liability shown on the return. On May 17, 2008, respondent issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy for 2006, which presumably advised petitioner and Ms. Leyh that respondent intended to levy upon their property to collect the unpaid tax liability from 2006. In response to the proposed levy, petitioner through his power of attorney (POA) filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (CDP request) on May 29, 2008, in which petitioner and Ms. Leyh requested that respondent consider separate installment agreements for petitioner and Ms. Leyh because they were finalizing their divorce. According to respondent's administrative record, the divorce was finalized in 2008. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 On October 2, 2008, petitioner's POA met 2 with SO Nesbitt to discuss the CDP Request. 3 Petitioner's POA presented two Forms 433-A, 4 Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Self-Employed Individuals, one for petitioner and one for Ms. Leyh. SO Nesbitt advised petitioner's POA that petitioner's Form 433-A was incomplete and that by October 23, 2008, petitioner must provide supporting documentation, file the 2007 Federal income tax return, submit installment agreement proposals for petitioner and the former spouse. 12 While a copy of the filed 2007 Federal income tax 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 return was provided, petitioner did not submit the requested documentation by the proposed deadline. Due to other agency priorities, PO Nesbitt did not work on the case again until December 2010. At that time, petitioner had not filed his 2008 and 2009 Federal income tax returns and had only made one estimated tax payment for 2008. On December 10, 2010, SO Nesbitt sent a letter to petitioner, requesting updated financial information and the filing of the 2008 and 2009 Federal income tax returns. On February 1, 2011, petitioner's POA telephoned SO Nesbitt acknowledging that petitioner 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 had not provided any of the requested documentation. SO Nesbitt gave petitioner another week to comply 3 with the documentation request. 4 5 6 On February 16, 2011, petitioner's POA provided the requested financial information for petitioner. Based on the submitted information, SO 7 Nesbitt determined petitioner had $542 each month to 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 fund an installment agreement. SO Nesbitt's calculation of petitioner's monthly expenses did not take into account two monthly payments for petitioner's health insurance because it was not clear whether petitioner funded the payments with his own funds or from his business account. In any event, SO Nesbitt also concluded that petitioner was not eligible for an installment agreement because petitioner had not filed his Federal income tax returns for 2008 through 2010. On the same day, SO Nesbitt telephoned 19 petitioner's POA and informed him of her conclusions. 20 21 22 23 24 25 SO Nesbitt offered two alternatives: (1) petitioner could be eligible for an installment agreement but only if petitioner filed his Federal income tax returns for 2008 through 2010, or (2) petitioner could be placed on currently not collectible status if petitioner was able to provide information to show 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 that he was making his monthly health insurance payments with his own personal funds. On March 2, 2011, petitioner's POA informed SO Nesbitt that petitioner could not afford to prepare the missing Federal income tax returns at that time; petitioner's POA also did not provide any further information on the monthly health insurance payments. SO Nesbitt explained to petitioner's POA that she would have to sustain the proposed levy. Petitioner's POA indicated that he understood. On December 15, 2011, respondent issued a 12 Notice of Determination to petitioner, sustaining the 13 14 15 proposed levy. The Notice of Determination adequately addressed all requirements under section 6330 (c) (3) and concluded that petitioner was not 16 eligible for an installment agreement because he did 17 18 19 20 21 not file his 2008 through 2010 Federal income tax returns. It went on to say that Appeals could not consider petitioner's account as temporarily uncollectible because the financial information submitted to Appeals showed that petitioner had the 22 ability to make some kind of payment. 23 24 25 On January 11, 2012, petitioner filed a timely petition with this Court, asking us to review respondent's determinations in the Notice of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 Determination. The petition assigns the following 2 3 4 errors to the Notice of Determination: (1) it failed to consider petitioner's former spouse in the determination; (2) it failed to take into account 5 petitioner's medical bills. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Discussion Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in controversy where the record establishes "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law." Rule 121(a) and (b). As the moving party, respondent bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to petitioner as the nonmoving party. Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252,260 (2002). Where a motion for summary judgment is made, an adverse party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for 20 trial." Rule 121(d). Here, respondent supported his 21 motion with the pleadings, a declaration from SO 22 23 24 25 Carmouche, and various exhibits. Petitioner failed to respond to respondent's motion. Accordingly, we conclude that this case is ripe for summary judgment. Because petitioner does not dispute the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 underlying liability-~in fact, he timely filed his Federal income tax return for 2006--the Court reviews respondent's determinations in the CDP hearing only for abuse of discretion. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111 (2007). That is, whether the determinations were arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. When the standard of review is abuse of discretion, our review is limited to the administrative record developed during the CDP hearing. Keller v. Commissioner, 568 F.3d 710, 718 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'g T.C. Memo. 2006-166. We reject petitioner's first assertion that respondent abused his discretion when he did not consider petitioner's former spouse in the Notice of 15 Determination. The CDP request specifically asked 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 respondent to consider separate installment agreements for him and Ms. Leyh. Petitioner's Notice of Determination states, "As per your request, your financial data and any proposed installment agreement were addressed individually from your x-wife. Due to Federal Disclosure issues, only the relevant information for you is included in your analysis." Thus, there can be no abuse of discretion when respondent conducted the CDP hearing in a manner consistent with petitioner's wishes. Moreover, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 petitioner and Ms. Leyh are jointly and severally liable for the entire tax liability at issue because they filed a joint Federal income tax return; as a result, respondent may proceed to collect the entire liability from petitioner alone without reference to Ms. Leyh. See Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 391-392 (1992). We also reject petitioner's second assertion that respondent failed to take into account his medical bills in the Notice of Determination. The record shows that SO Nesbitt considered all 12 medical expenses petitioner had claimed. When 13 14 15 16 17 18 calculating petitioner's monthly expenses, SO Nesbitt did not take into account two monthly payments for petitioner's health insurance because it was not clear whether petitioner was paying them with his own funds. SO Nesbitt invited petitioner to provide further information to show that petitioner was 19 making the payments from his personal account, but 20 21 22 23 24 25 petitioner failed to do so. Thus, SO Nesbitt did not abuse her discretion when she declined to consider evidence not properly before Appeals and concluded that petitioner was not eligible for currently not collectible status. Petitioner does not raise any other issues 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 11 1 2 3 in his petition. Thus, we deem petitioner to have waived all other issues. Rule 331(b) (4). We hold that respondent did not act 4 arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in 5 fact or law in sustaining the proposed levy. 6 Accordingly, we will issue an Order and Decision granting respondent's motion for summary judgment, sustaining Appeals ' determination, and allowing respondent to proceed with the collection action that is the subject of this proceeding. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 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