TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Lola Marie Hussey
Docket Number: 5981-24L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/11/2026
Pages: 8

LOLA MARIE HUSSEY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent United States Tax Court Washington, DC 20217 Docket No. 5981-24L. ORDER 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 in the above case before Special Trial Judge Carluzzo at Dallas, Texas, on January 8, 2026, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Served 02/11/26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bench Opinion by Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo January 8, 2026 3 Lola Marie Hussey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 5981-24L 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 (bench opinion). Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 12 Procedure. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. By Order served April 24, 2025, this section 6330(d) case was assigned for disposition to me. See sec. 7443A(b)(4). Following the disposition of respondent's then pending Motion for Summary Judgment, by Order served September 24, 2025, the case was set for trial in Dallas, Texas, petitioner's requested place of trial, for January 8, 2026. That Order also advised the parties that the obligations imposed upon them in the preciously served Standing Pretrial Order remained in full force and effect 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 with respect to the scheduled trial. Those obligations 4 included the requirement that the parties submit a pretrial memorandum. Respondent's was filed January 13, 2025; petitioner failed to submit one. The trial proceeded as scheduled. Anthony J. Pollinzi appeared on behalf of respondent. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. In a Notice of Determination (Notice), dated March 8, 2024, respondent determined that various collection actions are appropriate with respect to petitioner's outstanding liabilities for section 6702 penalties for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, assessed following the filing of petitioner's (1) 2015 Form 1040X and (2) an original Form 1040 for each of the other years. Respondent now concedes one of the penalties for 2016 and one of the penalties for 2017 (underlying liabilities). The issues are: (1) whether each of the above- referenced documents is described in section 6702(a); and (2) whether respondent's determination to collect the underlying liabilities is an abuse of discretion. Respondent bears the burden of proof with respect to the first issue, see section 6703, and petitioner bears the burden of proof on the second. By way of background, little discussion is necessary. As petitioner's original 2015 return shows, 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 she is a nurse anesthetist and provided services to 5 various employers in that capacity as an independent contractor during that year. Her 2015 return also shows that she was paid $267,466 in compensation for doing so. With the exception of her 2019 Form 1040, information on the Form 1040 for each of the other years also shows her profession as a nurse (specifically she identifies her occupation as a "CRNR" initials commonly used to refer to a person's status as a certified registered nurse anesthetist). Her occupation on the 2019 Form 1040 is shown as "non-privileged", an occupation description not familiar to the Court, but otherwise irrelevant to the findings made below. With the 2015 Form 1040X and the Form 1040 for each of the other years petitioner submitted documents described as "corrected" Forms 1099 suggesting that previously issued Forms 1099 show compensation paid her for each year in issue, and respondent's records confirm the amount of that compensation for each year (her compensation for 2015, of course, is confirmed by her original Form 1040). We note that petitioner has not denied receipt of any of the income attributed to her in respondent's records. Respondent's evidence shows, and we find that petitioner was employed as nurse anesthetist for each year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 in issue, and she was compensated for providing service as 6 such during each of those years. That fact of compensation for each year is further confirmed by withholdings made from such compensation and contributions made to at least one retirement plan during each year. Instead of reporting that compensation, on the 2015 Form 1040X and each Form 1040 for the other years, petitioner reports "0" income. Respondent's evidence further shows, and we further find that before the assessment of each penalty respondent complied with section 6751(b). Next we consider whether the 2015 Form 1040X and the Form 1040 for each of the other years is described in section 6702(a), and we find that each document is so 15 described. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That section provides that a person is subject to a penalty if the person files "what purports to be a return", which "does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged", and such conduct "reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws". Each document under review here clearly purports to be a return; after all the document is prepared on a standard and publicly available Form 1040X or Form 1040. Furthermore, by showing "0" income rather than income 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 actually earned, each document fails to contain 7 information on which the substantial correctness of the petitioner's correct federal income tax liability can be determined. Petitioner's 2015 original return shows that she is aware of her obligation to report and pay federal income tax on income earned, and her conduct in showing a "0" where that income should be reported on each return demonstrates her attempt to delay or impede the obligations imposed upon her by federal tax law. It follows that petitioner is liable for each of the penalties that remain in dispute, and we so hold. In addition to challenging the liabilities resolved above, petitioner's First Amended Petition, filed October 31, 2025, also challenges the determination made in the Notice because (1) in some manner or another respondent failed to proceed as required by section 6320 and/or 6330, and (2) section 6702 is unconstitutional. The record shows that during the administrative hearing, petitioner insisted that respondent's settlement officer focus only on the underlying liabilities. For example, in statements made in her request for the administrative hearing, petitioner noted that she expected that the hearing would "focus on one issue alone: liability", and that the settlement officer should not raise other issues typically considered at such 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 proceedings. See, e.g. Ex. 12-R. Because petitioner 8 refused to have such issues considered at the administrative hearing, we will not consider her challenge to the process here. See Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002). But if we did, we would find that respondent's evidence shows that in all respects respondent proceeded as required by section 6320 and section 6330. To the extent that the Amended Petition suggests that the settlement officer did not properly consider the underlying liabilities, we note that we did, and our review is de novo. Petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of section 6702 as made in the Amended Petition arguably relates to the existence or the amount of the underlying liabilities. However, the challenge is nothing more than words on a page; tax statutes are presumptively constitutional. Petitioner has offered no evidence on the point, she did not appear at trial to explain the basis for the claim, and she did not submit a pretrial memorandum in which argument in support of the claim could have been made. We consider petitioner to have waived her challenge to the underlying liabilities on constitutional 24 ground. 25 It follows that respondent may proceed with collection as determined in the Notice. 9 To reflect the foregoing, except for the penalties conceded by respondent, decision will be entered for respondent. (Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 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