TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Carmen Pina
Docket Number: 505-12SL
Judge: Panuthos
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/20/2013
Pages: 9

CLC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CARMEN PINA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 505-12SL. ) ) ) ) ) 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 hearing in the above case before Chief Special Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos at New York, New York, on March 6, 2013, containing 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 will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Peter J. Panuthos Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 20, 2013 SERVED Mar 21 2013 Capital Reporting Company Carmen Pina 03-06-2013 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Peter J. Panuthos 3 2 March 6, 2013 Carmen Pina 3 Docket No. 505-12SL 4 THE COURT: The court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and 6 7 the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and 8 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case. 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 11 authority granted in section 7459 (b) of the Internal 12 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 13 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Subsequent 14 section references contained in this bench opinion 15 are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 16 as amended, in effect for 2009, and Rule references 17 18 are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This matter is before us on respondent's 19 Motion For Summary Judgment, filed December 20, 2012. 20 The sole issue for decision is whether respondent's 21 determination to proceed with a proposed levy to 22 collect for the taxable year 2009 was an abuse of 23 discretion. 24 The record establishes the following. 25 Petitioner filed a timely petition disputing (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013 Capital Reporting Company Carmen Pina 03-06-2013 1 2 3 4 5 respondent's Notice of Determination dated December 6, 2011, that sustained a proposed levy with respect to her outstanding tax liability for tax year 2009, based on unpaid taxes reported on her federal income tax return for that year. Petitioner resided in New 6 York at the time she filed the petition. 7 On November 16, 2010, respondent sent 8 petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and 9 Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 with respect 10 11 12 to petitioner's 2008 and 2009 tax years. On January 6, 2011, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a hearing 13 with respect to petitioner's 2009 tax year. On 14 January 21, 2011, petitioner mailed respondent a form 15 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or 16 Equivalent Hearing. In her request for hearing, 17 petitioner indicated that she was seeking a 18 collection due process hearing or equivalent hearing 19 for both the notice of federal tax lien filing (NFTL) 20 for tax years 2008 and 2009 and the proposed levy 21 action for tax year 2009. 22 23 In her request for a collection due process (CDP) hearing, petitioner requested an offer-in- 24 compromise. Respondent mailed petitioner a letter on 25 May 24, 2011, scheduling a telephonic CDP hearing for (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013 Capital Reporting Company Carmen Pina 03-06-2013 1 2 3 June 16, 2011. The letter informed petitioner that her hearing request concerning the NFTL for tax years 2008 and 2009 was untimely, and that as a result, she 5 4 would be entitled to an equivalent hearing with 5 respect to the NFTL. The letter also instructed 6 petitioner to submit a form 433-A, Collection 7 Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self- 8 Employed Individuals, if she wished to submit an 9 offer-in-compromise. 10 11 Petitioner submitted some financial information, but did not submit a completed 12 collection information statement. The settlement 13 officer forwarded the information petitioner 14 submitted to respondent's Centralized Offer in 15 Compromise Unit for processing. On August 21, 2011, 16 the respondent's Centralized Offer in Compromise Unit 17 sent petitioner a letter requesting that she submit a 18 collection information statement and additional 19 documentation related to the financial data that she 20 previously submitted. Petitioner still did not 21 22 submit a collection information statement. On October 11, 2011, respondent's 23 Centralized Offer in Compromise unit sent petitioner 24 a letter explaining that her offer in compromise was 25 being returned because she did not provide a (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013 Capital Reporting Company Carmen Pina 03-06-2013 6 1 collection information statement. On December 6, 2 3 4 5 6 7 2011, respondent issued the Notice of Determination upon which this case is based, sustaining the proposed levy action for tax year 2009. On January 3, 2012, petitioner filed a document which was filed as the petition to commence this case . On February 2, 2012, petitioner filed an amended petition, in 8 which she asserted that respondent did not take into 9 consideration the documents that she submitted. 10 On December 20, 2012, respondent filed a 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. By Order dated January 12 4, 2013, petitioner was provided an opportunity to 13 object to respondent's motion. Petitioner failed to 14 file an objection or otherwise respond to 15 respondent's motion or the Court's order. 16 17 Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive 18 trials. Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 19 678, 681 (1988) . Summary judgment may be granted 20 with respect to all or any part of the legal issues 21 in controversy "if the pleadings, answers to 22 interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any 23 other acceptable materials, together with the 24 affidavits or declarations, if any, show that there 25 is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013 Capital Reporting Company Carmen Pina 03-06-2013 1 that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. " 2 Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 3 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 4 5 6 7 8 1994); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985) . Sections 6320 and 6330 provide procedures for administrative and judicial review of respondent's lien and levy actions. In short, any 9 person receiving a notice of lien filing or a 10 proposed levy may request an administrative hearing 11 with respondent's Appeals Office. The Appeals Office 12 is obliged to verify that the requirements of any 13 applicable law or administrative procedure have been 14 met. Secs. 6330 (c) (1), 6320 (c). The person may 15 raise at the administrative hearing any relevant 16 issue relating to the unpaid tax or the collection 17 action, including appropriate spousal defenses, 18 challenges to the appropriateness of the collection 19 action, and offers of collection alternatives. Secs. 20 6330 (c) (2) (A), 6320 (c) . The person may also raise at 21 22 the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if the person did not 23 receive a statutory of notice of deficiency for such 24 tax liability or did not otherwise have an 25 opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Secs. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013 Capital Reporting Company Carmen Pina 03-06-2013 1 2 6330 (c) (2) (B), 6320 (c). When the underlying tax liability is 3 properly at issue, we review the Commissioner's 4 determination de novo; where the validity of the 5 underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, we 8 6 will review the Commissioner's administrative 7 determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. 8 Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. 9 Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). 10 Petitioner may prove abuse of discretion by showing 11 that respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, 12 capriciously, or without sound basis in41aw. See 13 Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111 (2007). 14 When a hearing officer is unable or refuses to 15 consider collection alternatives because of a 16 taxpayer's failure to provide financial information, 17 courts have held that there was no abuse of 18 discretion. Schwersensky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 19 2006-178; see also Lance v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 20 2009-129. 21 Because petitioner did not dispute the 22 underlying tax liability during the CDP hearing or in 23 her petition, we review respondent's determination to 24 proceed with collection for abuse of discretion. Goza 25 v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 182. Petitioner (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013 Capital Reporting Company Carmen Pina 03-06-2013 9 1 2 3 4 5 contends that she did not receive respondent's requests for additional information. Petitioner also contends that respondent abused his discretion by not considering the incomplete financial information that she submitted with her offer-in-compromise. 6 Petitioner asks the Court to remand this matter to 7 8 9 the settlement officer so that she can submit the requested information. Petitioner failed to submit the requested 10 collection information statement to the settlement 11 officer during the CDP hearing so that respondent 12 13 could evaluate the proposed offer-in-compromise, we have consistently held that it is not an abuse of 14 discretion for the Appeals Office to reject A ICL$doy 15 alternatives and sustain the proposed collection 16 action on the basis of the taxpayer's failure to 17 submit requested financial information. See Huntress 18 v.AT.C. Memo. 2009-161; Prater v. Commissioner, T.C. 19 Memo. 2007-241; Roman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 20 2004-20. Petitioner's explanation that she was not 21 aware that respondent's settlement officer requested 22 a collection information statement and additional 23 financial information is not adequate. Petitioner 24 failed to provide adequate information and we are 25 satisfied that it was requested. Accordingly, it was (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013 Capital Reporting Company Carmen Pina 03-06-2013 10 1 2 3 not an abuse of discretion for the Appeals Office to reject petitioner's proposed offer-in-compromise because of a lack of necessary financial information. 4 Construing all factual inferences against respondent, 5 we conclude that no issues of material fact are in 6 dispute and respondent is entitled to judgment as a 7 matter of law. See Rule 121 (d). As indicated, 8 petitioner did not file an objection to the motion 9 although provided an opportunity to do so. 10 11 Based on the foregoing, respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed December 20, 2012, will 12 be granted. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013