TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Francis Milton Mumma
Docket Number: 14444-10L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/17/2012
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 FRANCIS MILTON MUMMA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R . Docket No. 14444-10L. 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 Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Baltimore, Maryland, on January 23, 2012, containing his oral findings of the hearing. fact and opinion rendered at the conclus-ion of In accordance with the oral fact and opinion, respondent's Motion for Summa¶y Judgment will be granted and a decision entered for respondent findings of (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 17, 2012 SERVED FEB 2 3 202 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 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke January 23, 2012 Francis Milton Mumma Docket No. 14444-10L 3 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 Internal Revenue Code § 7459 and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Hereinafter in this bench opinion, section references will be to the Internal Revenue Code and Rule references will be to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The case is before the Court on Respondent's motion for summary judgment. Respondent filed this motion on·November 16, 2011, and the Court in an order dated November 18, 2011, ordered the Petitioner to file a response to the motion on or before December 19, 2011. The Court also set this motion for hearing at the trial sessioniof the Court in Baltimore, Maryland, which commenced today, January 23, 2012. Petitioner failed to appear today when the case was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 called for hearing and the Petitioner failed to file a response pursuant to the Court ' s order of November 18, 2011. Summary judgment is appropriate pursuant to Rule 121 when after considering the pleadings and any other acceptable materials, including affidavits and declarations, the moving party .shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121 (b) . Respondent has the burden to establish that the case is susceptible to summary judgment, but Petitioner has the burden in general pursuant to Rule 142. Code § 7491 is inapplicable to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent as a general matter in this case. Filed together with Respondent's motion for summary judgment is a declaration of the settlement officer who was assigned the Petitioner's case. .Also filed with the·motion are numerous exhibits.reflecting the administratïve activities in the case. These exhibits inclúde copies of Form 4340 certificate of assessments, payments and other specified matters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 · relating to the Petitioner's taxable years 1988 24 25 through 2006.. Petitioner failed to file federal income tax 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 returns for those years, and Respondent prepared substitute for returns pùrsuant to § 6020(b). Respondent subsequently assessed the underlying income tax liabilities and additions to tax and interest. The total liabilities pending in this action by Respondent to.seek collection through levy approximate $80,000. On October 26, 2009, Respondent issued to the Petitioner a letder LT-11, final notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing. Petitioner returned this notice to Respondent asserting certain frivolous arguments which we construe to be Petitioner's attempt to contest the underlying tax liability. Petitioner subsequently submitted a Form 12153, request for a collection due process hearing, dated November 10, 2009. A settlement officer was assigned, and the settlement officer contacted the- Petitioner in a letter dated March 15, 2010, scheduling a telephone conference on April 12, 2010, with Petitioner. The letter also offered Petitioner a face-to-face meeting which would be arranged if the Petitioner contacted the settlement officer. The letter sent by the settlement officer also requested that Petitioner complete a collection information statement and that 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 the Petitioner file a 2008 federal income tax return, which had not been filed as of the date of the letter. The settlement officer did not initially offer Petitioner a face-to-face conference because Petitioner had failed to raise what Respondent deemed to be non-frivolous issues as Petitioner's arguments all failed to correspond with significant collection issues or collection alternatives. The settlement officer's actions in this regard were consistent with Treas. Reg. 301.6330-1(d) (2)Q&A-D8 and Clough v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2007-106. In a followup letter, the Petitioner requested a face-to-face conference but fa;iled to provide the settlement officer with any of the documents that the settlement officer had :requested. Subsequently, the Petitioner failed to contact the settlement officer at the time designated for the telephone conference. On or about April 20, 2010, the Petitioner forwarded to Respondent a copy of a letter dated April 16, 2010, along with his affidavit of material facts, a 52-page document entitled Test for Federal Tax Professionals, a 7-page document entitled The Internal Revenue Service, a private corporation, and a certificate of service related thereto. None of these 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 documents were responsive to the information sought by the settlement officer. On May 19, 2010, the settlement officer issued to Petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action under § 6320 and/or § 6330. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court following that notice of determination taking into account the time the petition was in the United States mail. In his petition, the Petitioner alleges that Respondent erred by failing to offer a face-to- face hearing. Petitioner also challenges the underlying tax liabilities and additions to tax. Petitioner also challenges Respondent's authority to assess income tax liabilities and additions to taR via a substitute for return. Petitioner denies having received a notice of demand for payment as well. Although the Petitioner would be entitled to raise arguments as to the underlying liability if he had properly raised those with the settlement officer, Petitioner's failure to provide information about the underlying liability to the settlement officer or to submit amended income tax returns to the settlement officer for the years in question causes him to be unable to raise issues regarding the underlying 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 8 liability before this.Court. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111-116 (2007). Because Petitioner did not properly raise liability issues with the settlement officer and provide the settlement officer with information which could have been reviewed relative to those issues and because the Petitioner failed to.provide the settlement officer with any meaningful information concerning his income tax liabilities, we review Respondent's determination for abuse of discretion because the liability is not properly before us, Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). As stated; previously, the Respondent, as the moving party, has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T..C. 412, 416 (1982). The non- movant's evidence must be more than merely assertions and must involve a colorable demonstration that there's a legitimate-factual dispute. Dombroski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 84 (1967). Petitioner has failed to provide any information which demonstrates that there is a genuine issue of material fact given his failure to properly provide the settlement officer with information contesting his underlying liability, and given the 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 fact that Respondent's records indicate that the tax liabilities were properly assessed and the Petitioner was sent a notice for demand and payment, Petitioner has failed to raise a material fact that demonstrates an error in the Respondent's application of the assessments procedure. Petitioner's mere assertion that he did not receive the notice of demand and payment is not sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent did not follow normal procedures given Respondent's records and its certificate of assessment and payments attached to the settlement officer's declaration. The notice of determination and the declaration submitted by the settlement officer establish that the appeals office considered the factors required to be verified in a § 6330 hearing, that is that the verification was made of the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedures having been met and that the proposed collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with a legitimate concern of the taxpayer that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary. Given Petitioner's failure to respond and submit any additional information which might be 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 10 pertinent, and given the administrative record, which is before the Court and is uncontested, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and·that summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure is appropriate. Given the conclusions we've reached in this bench opinion, Respondent's motion for summary judgment will be granted and a decision will be entered upholding Respondent's proposed collection action. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // . // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888