TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Gbenga Ibironke
Docket Number: 21144-18L
Judge: Nega
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/02/2020
Pages: 8

CLC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 GBENGA IBIRONKE, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 21144-18 L. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b) of the 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 proceedings in the above case before Judge Joseph W. Nega at San Francisco, California, 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, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph W. Nega Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 2, 2020 SERVED Jan 02 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph W. Nega December 12, 2019 Gbenga Ibironke v. Commissioner Docket No. 21144-18 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. The following represents the Court's oral Findings of Fact and Opinion. This bench opinion is made pursuant to section 7459(b) and Rule 152, and shall not be relied on as precedent 1n any 10 other case. Unless otherwise indicated, all section 11 12 references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax 13 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All monetary 14 15 amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. This case was commenced in response to a Notice 16 of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under 17 Section(s) 6320 and/or 6330 dated September 21, 2018, 18 19 20 21 22 (notice of determination) that sustained a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (notice of intent to levy) with respect to petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liability for 2015 (year at issue). The issue for decision is whether the settlement 23 officer (SO) in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office 24 of APpeals abused its discretion in sustaining the 25 proposed collection action. 1 51EE (974406-2250)operatiotts@escribers.net|www.escribersaet This case was tried on December 10, 2019, 4 in San Francisco, California. Vivian Ho appeared on behalf of petitioner. Daniel J. Kleid appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts are stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference. During trial, Exhibit 12-P was admitted into evidence over respondent's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 objection. 11 12 13 14 15 16 At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in California. Petitioner timely filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for tax year 2015. On May 15, 2017, respondent issued a notice of deficiency for tax year 2015 determining a deficiency of $7,160 and an 17 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $1,432 18 19 20 21 for failure to report income. Petitioner did not challenge the determinations in the notice of deficiency by filing a petition with this Court. Accordingly, respondent assessed the deficiency and accuracy-related 22 penalty for tax year 2015. 23 24 25 On May 14, 2018, in an effort to collect these unpaid liabilities, respondent sent petitioner a notice of intent to levy, advising petitioner of his right to a cribers 973)406-2250}operations®escribers.netlwww.escribersaet collection due process (CDP) hearing. In response, petitioner mailed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (CDP hearing request). In his CDP hearing request, petitioner checked the box 5 marked "I Cannot Pay Balance." On August 23, 2018, a SO from the IRS Office of Appeals mailed to petitioner a letter that scheduled a telephone CDP hearing for September 11, 2018. The SO informed petitioner that, in order for him to consider a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 collection alternative, petitioner must provide a 11 completed Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for 12 Wage Earners and Self-Employed individual, within 14 days 13 of the date of the letter. Petitioner failed to submit 14 the requested Form 433-A and did not otherwise communicate 15 with the SO by the deadline. 16 17 Petitioner did not call in for the CDP hearing on September 11, 2018. On September 11, 2018, the SO 18 mailed to petitioner a letter, stating that he had neither 19 participated in the hearing nor informed him that the 20 21 22 scheduled time was inconvenient. The letter also indicated that he would make a determination by reviewing the administrative file and advised petitioner that if he 23 wanted to provide any information he should do so within 24 25 14 days of the date of the letter. On September 12, 2018, petitioner called the SO (973)406-2250]opratiom@es:tibersnet{wwwAscribm,net 6 and the parties held a telephone CDP hearing. During the hearing the SO informed petitioner that he is prohibited from challenging the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability because he received a statutory notice of deficiency for the year at issue. Petitioner did not dispute receiving the statutory notice of deficiency. Petitioner stated that he is not interested in a collection alternative because he could not pay the amount owed. On September 21, 2018, the SO issued a notice of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 determination sustaining the levy notice and concluded 11 12 that he could not consider any collection alternatives because petitioner had not submitted the necessary and 13 requested Form 433-A. 14 15 16 17 I. Standard of Review OPINION Section 6330 requires the Commissioner to notify a taxpayer if he intends to levy on that taxpayer's 18 property. The notice must inform the taxpayer of his or 19 her right to a CDP hearing regarding the proposed 20 21 22 23 collection action. Sec. 6330(a). In a CDP hearing taxpayers may raise any relevant issue, such as a request for consideration of a collection alternative. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). A determination to sustain a proposed levy 24 may be reviewed by this Court. Sec. 6330(d) (1); see Rules 25 330-334. In general, upon review of a notice of Cribers (973)4064250loperations@esibers.netjwwwescribers.net determination sustaining a proposed levy, the Court will limit its review to those issues properly raised during the administrative hearing. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 114=115 (2007); Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 7 488, 493 (2002). Where the taxpayer's underlying liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews any determination regarding the underlying liability de novo. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Where the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 taxpayer's liability is not properly at issue, we review 11 Appeals' determination for abuse of discretion only. 12 Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197, 200 (2008); Goza v. 13 Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 182. A determination is an I 14 abuse of discretion if it is arbitrary, capricious, or 15 without sound basis in fact or law. Murphy v. 16 Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 308, 320 (2005), aff'd, 469 17 18 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006). Petitioner does not challenge his underlying 19 Federal income tax liability for 2015. Thus, because his 20 underlying liability is not properly before the Court, we 21 will review Appeals' determination for abuse of discretion 22 only. 23 II. Abuse of Discretion 24 In reviewing an SO's determinations we consider 25 whether he or she: (1) properly verified that the (973}406-2250|operationseescibersnet[www.escribers.net 8 requirements of applicable law or administrative procedure have been met, (2) considered any relevant issues petitioner raised, and (3) considered "whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of * * * [petitioner) that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary." See sec. 6330(c) (3). Our review of the record establishes that the SO verified that the requirements of applicable law and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 administrative procedure had been met. At trial, 11 Petitioner argued that respondent's own case activity 12 13 record and Notice of Determination support petitioner's contention that respondent did not adequately consider the 14 petitioner's circumstances or balance petitioner's 15 16 17 concerns in this case. We do not agree. Further, we find that the SO balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of petitioner that any 18 collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. 19 20 21 Finally, the SO took into consideration all issues petitioner raised. Although petitioner indicated in his CDP hearing request "I Cannot Pay Balance" 22 petitioner did not provide the SO with a Form 433-A, or 23 any other necessary information that would justify 24 granting his request. During ial, petitioner testified 25 that he electronically submitted the Form 433-A. Because Cribers (973)406-2250|operrtionsøestribetsmt{www.escribers.net 9 there is no support for petitioner's testimony on this Point in the record of this case coupled with the fact that the assertion about filing a Form 433-A was not previously argued in the parties filing before trial or in opening statements at trial, the Court did not find his testimony about the filing of Form 433-A credible. The SO gave petitioner ample time to submit the required documentation before closing the case. We have consistently held that it is not an abuse of discretion for an Appeals officer to reject collection alternatives and sustain collection action where (as here) the taxpayer has failed, after being given sufficient opportunities, to supply the required forms and information. See Huntress v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-161; Prater v. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-241 (2007). 16 17 18 19 III. Conclusion Accordingly, a decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. In reaching our holdings 20 herein, we have considered all arguments made, and, to the 21 extent not mentioned above, we conclude they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit. (Whereupon, at 9:28 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 22 23 24 25 9733406-2250|operatiorts@escelbetsmet|wwwasaibeetnet