TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Deneen D. Buckley
Docket Number: 3800-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/19/2010
Pages: 7

& M 157 p CW UNITED STATES TAX COURT I WASHINGTON , DC 20217 I DENEEN D . BUCKLEY , Petitioner c v . f ) Docket No . 3800-09S . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent j ) O RID E R I Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent'a copy of the pageslof the transcript of the hearing of the above case before 'Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Detroit, Michigan, onii4arch 3 ., 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral'findings of fact and opinion, an Order Of Dismissal will be entered . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . March 19, 2010 $E ED MAR 22 2010 I 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert'N . Armen 2 March 3, 2010 1 3 Buckley v . Commissioner Docket No . 3800-09S 4 I . '5 THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL 6 FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND TH E 7 FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT ' S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT 8 AND OPINION . THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION 9 SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER 10 CASE . 11 II . 12 This proceeding was heard .as a Small Tax Case 13 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(f)(2) of 14 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, an d 15 Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rule is of 16 Practice and Procedure . See and compare Rules 330 17 through 334 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 18 Procedure . 19 'III . 20 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 21 authority granted by section .7459(b) of the Internal 22 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and Rule 152 of the 23 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 24 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, an d 25 unless otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)'628-4888 1 to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rul e 2 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 3 Procedure . 4 IV . 5 Kevin Erskine appeared on behalf o f 6 respondent . There was no appearance .by or on behalf 7 of Deneen D . Buckley . V . 9 This case represents an appeal byjpetitione r 10 from a notice of determination dated January 13, 2009, 11 issued .by respondent's Office of Appeals in Memphis, 12 Tennessee, in respect of a proposed levy to collec t 13 petitioner's liability for the taxable (calendar) year 14 2004 . 15 VI . 16 By Notice dated and served September 23, 17 2009, this case was calendared'for trial at th e 18 one-week session of the Court beginning on March 1," 19 2010, in Detroit, Michigan . However, on February 3, 20 2010, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss Fo r 21 Mootness, a copy of which was served by respondent on 22 petitioner by mail on February 2, 2010 . (Th e 23 Certificate of Service erroneously references a Motion 24 For Summary Judgment .) In his motion, respondent 25 , contends that "this collection due process case b e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 dismissed for mootness upon the grounds that there i s 2 no outstanding liability in this matter and the Cour t 3 has no jurisdiction to determine an overpayment o r 4 order a refund of any amounts paid .,, 5 By Order dated and served February 12, 2010, 6 the Court calendared respondent's motion for hearing 7 on March 1, 2010, in Detroit, Michigan . 8 VII . 9 The facts relevant to the disposition o f 10 respondent's motion may be briefly summarized as 11 follows : 12 Petitioner resided in the State of Michigan 13 at the time that the petition was filed with th e 14 Court . 15 In July2006, respondent determined a 16 deficiency in petitioner's income tax for 2604 . 17 Petitioner did not commence an action for { 18 redetermination in this Court and, in December 2006 , 19 respondent assessed the deficiency, together with 20 statutory interest . Upon notice and demand , 21 petitioner did not pay'the amount owing . See sec . 22 6303(a) . { 23 In due course, respondent sent petitioner a 24 final notice of intent to levy . Petitionerithen filed 25 a Form 12153, requesting an administrative hearin g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 before respondent's Office of Appeals . Ultimately, on 2 January 13, 2009, respondent's office of Appeal s 3 issued a Notice of Determination, stating inter alia 4 that "the levy is no longer warranted since th e account has been paid in full . " 6 In response to the January 13, 2009 Notic e 7 of Determination, petitioner appealed to this Court b y filing an imperfect petition on .February 17,j 2009 . a 9 See secs . 6330(d), 7502(a) . Thereafter, on April 10, 10 2009,, petitioner filed an amended petition . 11 Petitioner's pleadings make plain that sh e 12 wishes to challenge the existence or amount ;of the . . 13 underlying liability for 2004 . 14 As previously stated, on February 3, 2010, 15 respondent filed his Motion To Dismiss For Mootness . 16 Respondent attached to his motion as an exhibit, inter 17 alia, an Account Transcript for 2004 . The transcript 18 shows an account balance of zero, accrued interest of . 19 zero, accrued penalty of zero, and finally an account 20 balance plus accruals of zero . The transcrip t 21 demonstrates that petitioner's outstanding liability 22 was fully satisfied through, setoff of an overpayment 23 claimed on petitioner's 2007 return . 24 Pursuant to notice, respondent's motion to 25 dismiss was called for hearing at the Court's trial Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 (cid:127) 6 1 session in Detroit, Michigan, on March 1, 2010 . Only 2 counsel for respondent appeared at that time . 3 At the hearing, counsel for respondent i 4 confirmed that petitioner's account balance for 200 4 5 was zero and that the proposed levy is no longer 6 necessary and will not be effected . 7 VIII . 8 In Greene-Thapedi v . Commissioner ; 126 T .C . 9 1 (2006), Judge Thornton, writing for a majority o f 10 the Court in a reviewed opinion, held that : (1) The 11 taxpayer's challenges to the Commissioner's collection 12 action (a proposed levy) were moot because there was 13 no unpaid tax liability upon which a levy could b e 14 based and the Commissioner would not take any furthe r 15 collection action ; (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction 16 in a lien or levy case (collection review case) to 17 determine an overpayment or to order a refund o r 18 credit of taxes ; and (3) the taxpayer's case should be 19 dismissed as moot . 20 An Order Of Dismissal was entered in the 21 Greene-Thapedi case on January 13, 2006 . No appeal 22 was ever taken, and that case has long been final . 23 The reasoning of Green-Thapedi v . 24 Commissioner , supra, applies equally to the present 25 case . We are therefore obliged to grant respondent's Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 February 3, 2010 motion to dismiss . 2 Finally, a postscript . 3 The record suggests that a statutory notice 4 of claim disallowance may have been sent to!petitioner 5 for 2004 . If so , petitioner may have the right to sue 6 for a refund in a Federal district court or the United 7 States Court of Federal Claims . However, as cour t 8 rules and procedures are complex , petitioner may wish 9 to seek advice from a competent advisor regarding the 10 propriety of instituting a refund action . 11 IX . 12 In conclusion , we shall enter an Order of 13 Dismissal ( 1) granting respondent ' s Motion To Dismiss 14 For Mootness , filed February 3, 2010, and (2 ) 15 dismissing this case on the ground that petitioner's 16 tax liability for 2004 , the taxable year iniissue, ha s 17 been paid in full and the proposed levy is therefor e 18 no longer necessary . 19 X . 20 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT ' S .ORAL FINDINGS O F 21 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 22 (Whereupon , at 1 :33 p .m ., the bench opinion 23 in the above -entitled matter was concluded .)' 24 //. 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888