TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Johnny Mack Rowell
Docket Number: 13326-11L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/25/2013
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 JOHNNY MACK ROWELL, . Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDE R Docket No. 13326-11L Pursuant to Rule 152(b), 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 trial of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in San Francisco, California on December 13, 2012, containing her 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 appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, D.C. January 25, 2013 SGRVED JAN 29 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa December 13, 2012 Johnny Mack Rowell v. Commissioner Docket No. 13326-11L THE COURT: 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. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted in section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Code in effect for 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This collection review matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment, filed October 9, 2012. Petitioner submitted a document that the Court filed as a response to the summary judgment motion. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing scheduled on respondent's motion in San Francisco, California. Tiffany Wu appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 The record establishes the following facts. 2 Petitioner resided in Modesto, California when he 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 filed the collection review petition. Petitioner filed income tax returns for the years at issue. Withholding amounts were insufficient to pay the self-assessed amounts reflected on the returns for those years, and petitioner failed to pay the outstanding tax liabilities. Respondent issued petitioner a lien notice indicating that he had filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against petitioner's property regarding the unpaid tax liabilities for 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2008 (this shall be defined as the lien notice in this opinion). Respondent later issued petitioner a levy notice for 2003, 2006 and 2007, another levy notice for 2008 and a third levy notice for 2009. Respondent indicated in the notices that petitioner could receive a hearing. Petitioner failed to file a request for a hearing on a timely basis 20 with respect to the lien notice and the levy notice 21 22 23 24 25 for 2008. Respondent, however, gave him an equivalent hearing and thereafter issued petitioner a decision letter. The decision letter sustained the Federal tax lien against petitioner's property for his unpaid tax liabilities for 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 decision letter also sustained the proposed levy regarding his unpaid tax liability for 2008. Petitioner timely requested a hearing regarding the levy notice for 2003, 2006 and 2007 and the levy notice for 2009. During the hearing regarding the foregoing levy notices, petitioner did not contest the underlying tax liabilities. Instead, petitioner asked respondent to stop the levy and consider collection alternatives. Settlement Officer Irma Hernandez sent petitioner a letter scheduling a telephonic hearing and informing him that he must provide a completed Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self- Employed Individuals, and supporting financial documentation, for her to consider collection alternatives. Petitioner and the settlement officer had a telephonic hearing during which petitioner requested respondent consider an offer in compromise (OIC). 20 Petitioner did not provide any of the requested 21 22 23 24 25 information or documents, however, before the hearing. Respondent sent petitioner a Form 656, Offer in Compromise, after the hearing and instructed him that he needed to complete the form for her to consider any collection alternatives including an 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 OIC. Petitioner did not return a completed Form 656. Respondent determined that no collection alternatives were available and issued a determination notice sustaining the levy regarding 5 petitioner's tax liabilities for 2003, 2006, 2007 and 6 7 8 2009 (the levy action). Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court challenging the determination notice regarding the levy action. 9 Petitioner also attached the decision letter to the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 petition. In the petition, petitioner asserts that respondent failed to consider his failing health and dire employment situations . Petitioner does not address his failure to provide the information the settlement officer requested. Petitioner also does not indicate whether he seeks this Court's review of the decision letter. We assume, however, for the sake of argument that he does. OPINION We must decide two issues in this collection review case. The first issue is whether respondent is entitled to summary judgment in his favor regarding the determination notice. The second issue is whether we have jurisdiction to review the decision letter. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 We first consider whether respondent is entitled to summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g., FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the moving 7 materials, if any, show that there is no genuine 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b); Elec. Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). The moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 162 (2002) . The party opposing summary judgment must set forth facts that show that a genuine issue of 17 material fact exists and may not rely merely on 18 19 20 allegations or denials in the pleadings. Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986). We now address the standard of review. 21 Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is 22 23 24 25 properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Id.; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). We therefore must decide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or 6 without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Here, petitioner failed to submit any requested documents or financial information the settlement officer requested. We have frequently and consistently held that a settlement officer does not abuse any discretion if the taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested information. Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 79 (2005). Moreover, petitioner did not appear at the 16 motion hearing and has not presented any evidence or 17 18 persuasive arguments to convince us that respondent abused his discretion. Based upon the record as a 19 whole, we find that respondent did not abuse his 20 21 22 23 24 25 discretion in sustaining the proposed levy action regarding petitioner's outstanding tax liabilities for 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009. We shall therefore grant respondent's motion for summary judgment regarding the levy action for those years. We now address whether we have jurisdiction 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 1 2 3 4 to review the decision letter, which sustains the Federal tax lien regarding petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2008 and sustains the proposed levy action for 2008. This 5 Court does not have jurisdiction over any existing 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 collection action until a determination notice has been issued with respect to the collection action and the taxpayer appeals the determination within thirty days. See sec. 6330 (d) (1); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). We have held that where taxpayer makes an untimely request for a section 6330 hearing and is afforded an equivalent hearing, the resulting decision letter does not constitute a determination notice for purposes of section 6330(d). See Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 263 (2001); Offiler v. Commissioner, supra; Herrick v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-167. Here, petitioner made an untimely request for a hearing regarding the lien notice and the levy notice for 2008 and was afforded an equivalent hearing. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Settlement Officer's decisions in the decision letter. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent and an appropriate order will 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 10 1 2 be issued sustaining in its entirety the determinations made in the determination notice, upon 3 which this case is based, regarding petitioner's 4 5 unpaid income tax liabilities for 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009. The order will also grant respondent's 6 motion for summary judgment as to the levy action for those years. Finally, the order will strike for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the petition seeking review of the lien action and the proposed levy for 2008 as set forth in the decision letter. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 9:46 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