TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Thomas Wayne Buddemeier
Docket Number: 16750-10L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/24/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D.C. THOMAS WAYNE BUDDEMEIER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 16750-10L O R 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 transcript of Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Miami, Florida, on April 13, 2011, containing his oral fact and opinion rendered at conclusion of trial. the above case before Special Trial the trial of the pages of the findings of the In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 24, 2011 SERVED May 24 2011 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 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo April 13, 2011 Buddemeier v. Commissioner Docket No. 16750-10L 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. Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6330(d) (1) case was assigned and heard under the authority of , and pursuant to section 7443A(b) (4) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459-(b) and Rule 152. This case is before the Court on respondent's motion filed September 2, 2010, as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but by Order dated February 24, 2011, recharacterized as a motion for summary judgment . See Rule 4 0 . Pe t it ioner' s objection to respondent's motion was filed March 10, 2011. A hearing was conducted on respondent's motion Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 4 on April 11, 2011, in Miami, Florida. Derek P. Richman appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. Thomas Wayne Buddemeier appeared pro se, and argued in opposition to the motion. Giving due regard to the representations made in respondent's motion, the statements contained in petitioner's objection to respondent's motion, and taking into account the presentations made by the parties at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts in this case. Consequently, disposition of the case upon summary judgment is appropriate. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The undisputed facts relevant to the disposition of respondent's motion are easily summarized. In a notice of deficiency dated June 23, 2008, respondent determined a deficiency in, and imposed additions to tax with respect to petitioner's 2005 Federal income tax (the notice of deficiency). That deficiency, together with related amounts, was assessed in due course (the underlying liability). Petitioner acknowledges receipt of the notice of deficiency, but does not acknowledge respondent's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 5 authority to have issued it. In a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated June 24, 2010 (the notice of determination), respondent proposed to collect by levy the underlying liability. The petition in this case, filed in response to the notice of determination, challenges only the amount or the existence of the underlying liability. According to respondent's motion, petitioner may not challenge the underlying liability in this proceeding because he received a notice of deficiency. Respondent's position is well-founded. Because petitioner received the notice of deficiency his challenge to the existence and/or the amount of the underlying liability is precluded by section 6330(c) (2) (1B). In all other respects, the materials submitted in connection with the motion here under consideration establish that the obligations imposed upon respondent under section 6330 have been satisfied, and nothing petitioner has submitted or presented suggests otherwise. It follows that respondent may proceed with collection as determined in the notice of determination. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 6 In closing we think it appropriate to note that petitioner's claim that the compensation that he received during 2005 as a pharmacist for Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. is, or was not subject to Federal income tax is patently frivolous. That being so, at the hearing respondent requested that the Court impose a section 6673 penalty as part of its decision in this case. Because we are resolving this dispute by summary disposition, we are not inclined to impose a section 6673 penalty. Nevertheless, respondent's request puts petitioner on notice that advancing similar positions in other pending or future cases before this Court will likely result in the imposition of such a penalty. To reflect the foregoing an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:03 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888