TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Timothy Lee Todd
Docket Number: 13741-11L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/10/2013
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 TIMOTHY LEE TODD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 13741-11L. ) ) ) ) ORDE R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk ofthe Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy ofthe pages ofthe transcript ofthe trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Helena, Montana, 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, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. June 10, 2013 Ruñ) dÜll.1 2 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph R. Goeke TIMOTHY LEE TODD V. COMMISSIONER Docket No. 13741-11L May 6, 2013 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is rendered pursuant to section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Hereinafter, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and rule references are the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court has jurisdiction over the present case under section 6330(d). As Respondent made a 19 Notice of Determination following a collection due 20 21 process hearing, pursuant to section 6330, and within 30 days of that Notice of Determination, the 22 Petitioner filed a Petition with the United States 23 24 25 Tax Court by placing his Petition in the United States mail. The Petitioner is a resident of the State 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 of Montana. He currently gives as his residence P.O. Box 1265 in Wolf Point, Montana. This is significant, because this is the residence which 4 Petitioner had in 2009, when Respondent mailed to him 5 6 7 8 a Notice of Deficiency for the year 2005. Petitioner, in his testimony, and in his other statements to the Court, freely admitted that he believed he did receive the 2005 Notice of 9 Deficiency, and that he has always maintained the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 same post office box in Wolf Point, Montana. Among the evidence taken at trial, in addition to Petitioner's testimony, were certain exhibits offered by Respondent, including a United States Post Office document, which demonstrated that Respondent had forwarded the Notice of Deficiency to the address of the Petitioner in April of 2009. The Petitioner did not timely file a 18 Petition with the United States Tax Court at the time 19 he received the Notice of Deficiency in 2009. That 20 21 22 23 24 25 becomes pertinent to the scope of the Court's review of Respondent's collection due process actions in the present case. In the present case, Respondent seeks to collect taxes for the year 2005 via levy. Petitioner did not file a federal income tax return for 2005, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 and as previously stated, he received the Notice of 2 Deficiency for that year and did not file a petition 3 with the United States Tax Court. 4 5 In August of 2010, after assessing taxes to the Petitioner following his failure to file a 6 petition, the Respondent mailed a final notice, 7 Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to 8 a Hearing, relative to the 2005 tax liabilities, 9 which Respondent is seeking to collect. The current 10 11 12 balance of those liabilities is $10,448.48. Petitioner did file a timely request for a hearing after the receipt of the Notice relative to 13 Respondent's intent to levy. At the hearing with 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Respondent's settlement officer, however, Petitioner did not raise any arguments concerning collection alternatives or other arguments that were within the scope of the collection due process proceeding, pursuant to section 6330(c). Specifically, Petitioner only raised arguments relative to the underlying tax liability. Section 6330 (c) (2) (B) specifically addresses the Court ' s authority and Respondent's authority to entertain discussions about the underlying tax liability, in the context of a situation where the Taxpayer has received a Notice of Deficiency. The section reads 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 as follows: "The person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability, or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability." In the present case, Petitioner has admitted that he received a Notice of Deficiency for the tax liability in question. Therefore, his attempts to revisit the merits of Respondent's assessment are without merit, and simply cannot be considered, both by this Court and previously by the settlement officer who reviewed his case. If the tax liability is not properly at issue before the Court, we review Respondent's collection action proposal for abuse of discretion. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). 20 Petitioner has the burden of showing that 21 Respondent's actions are arbitrary or capricious. 22 Pacific First Federal Savings v. Commissioner, 101 23 24 25 T.C. 117, 121 (1993) and Rule 142(a). We note specifically that Petitioner has presented no evidence which would cause the burden of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 proof to be shifted in the present case, pursuant to section 7491, and we find that the Petitioner has the burden of proof. In any event, the burden of proof is not determinative, because Petitioner has admitted he did receive the Notice of Deficiency, and having received the Notice of Deficiency, the only argument 8 Petitioner raises as to the underlying tax liability 9 cannot be considered by this Court. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Respondent in the trial memorandum submitted in this case suggests that Petitioner should be subject to penalties for making frivolous arguments, pursuant to section 6673. We note that the Petitioner is sincere in seeking review of his arguments, that he is not subject to federal income tax because of his Native American status and various treaties, which he offered at the trial of this case. While we believe that those arguments cannot be considered at this proceeding, we believe 20 Petitioner's arguments were made in good faith, and 21 we decline Respondent's invitation to find that the 22 Petitioner is subject to sanctions under section 23 24 25 6673. We do, however, admonish the Petitioner that in seeking the appeal of this case, he should 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 look to the underlying merits of the legal arguments he's making, and particularly to the Internal Revenue Code provisions that are in play at this stage of the proceeding, and not maintain arguments of a general nature, which are not specific to the merits of the underlying case. We believe that on the merits of the underlying case, pursuant to Code Section 6330, which is the operative provision, both with respect to the administrative hearing offered to Petitioner, and also this Court's review, that there is no ability of the Court to review the underlying tax liability, and that Respondent was acting within the scope of the statute, in declining to entertain arguments about the underlying tax liability at the administrative hearing. We believe that unless the Petitioner is going to make specific arguments about the merits of the application of section 6330 in this case, he should not pursue an appeal in the Court of Appeals. However, that is his prerogative, and not our determination. We would, however, tell him that it is possible he might be subject to sanctions in the Court of Appeals, if the Court of Appeals deems his arguments to be frivolous. 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 9 Given our analysis of this case and the clear statutory provision in play, we are left with no alternative but to enter a decision for Respondent, and uphold Respondent's proposed collection action via levy. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. We'll go off the record. (Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 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