TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Bonny L. Goselin
Docket Number: 4187-12L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/19/2013
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 BONNY L. GOSELIN, Petitioner, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No.4187-12L Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORD E R ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of proceedings of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in San Francisco, California on October 23, 2013, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at calendared. the trial session at which this case was In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC November 19, 2013 SERVED N0y 2 2 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge 2 October 23, 2013 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BONNY L. GOSELIN v. Commissioner Docket No. 4187-12L 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. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Code in effect for 2007, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case involving a lien filing and a proposed levy to collect from petitioner her unpaid tax liabilities for 2007. This collection review matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court ordered petitioner to file a response or an objection to respondent's motion, and scheduled respondent's 23 motion for a hearing. 24 25 Petitioner did not file an objection nor a response, despite having been ordered to do so. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 Petitioner also failed to appear for the calendar 2 call for the October 21, 2013 San Francisco, 3 California trial session. Lesley Hale appeared on 4 5 6 behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes the following facts. 7 Petitioner resided in Lakeport, California at the 8 time she filed the collection review petition. 9 Petitioner failed to file a return for 2007. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Respondent prepared a substitute for return (SFR) based upon information from third party payors. Respondent informed petitioner that she had a tax liability for 2007, which respondent sought to collect through a levy. Respondent issued petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and 16 Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. Petitioner timely 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 requested a hearing and informed respondent that she had received both the levy notice and a lien notice to collect the unpaid tax liability for 2007. Petitioner requested in her hearing request that she be considered for collection alternatives, including an installment agreement and an offer and compromise. Respondent's Appeals officer asked petitioner to provide the following documents. First, signed copies of her return for 2009 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 and 2010 (the delinquent returns); Two. all income sources used to prepare the delinquent returns; Three. estimated tax payments for 2009 and 2010; and four, completed and current financial information 5 with accompanying documentation. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Respondent's officer repeatedly informed petitioner that the officer could not consider any collection methods, nor could the officer give petitioner a face-to-face hearing if petitioner failed to provide the requested documents, and if the petitioner was not in compliance with the tax laws. Respondent's officer scheduled a telephonic hearing with petitioner, in which petitioner failed to participate. Petitioner also failed to reschedule an alternative date for a hearing, or a time for a telephonic conference. Without any financial information from petitioner, and without compliance 18 with petitioner's filing and payment requirements, 19 respondent's officer sustained the collection action 20 21 22 23 24 25 in a determination notice. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court. She asserts that she may challenge the underlying liability for 2007. She was wrongly denied a face-to-face hearing. She also asserted that she was unable to provide a collection 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 alternative. Petitioner asserted in the petition that she was not given sufficient time to prepare and file the delinquent returns, and submit the requested financial information. As mentioned previously, Respondent filed a summary judgment motion, and the Court scheduled a hearing on respondent's motion at the San Francisco, 8 California trial session beginning October 21, 2013. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 OPINION We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation, and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See e.g., FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable 17 materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b). Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). We therefore must decide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23(1999). Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining the collection action should proceed with respect to petitioner's unpaid liability for 2007. Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We briefly explain how we reached our decision. First, the record reflects that petitioner never presented any financial information for the settlement officer to evaluate any collection alternatives. We have frequently and consistently held that an officer does not abuse any discretion by refusing to consider collection alternatives, if the taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested financial information. Sapp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-104. In addition, a settlement officer is not obligated to negotiate indefinitely or weigh any specific time before 1ssulng a determination. See 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 Kreit Mech. Assocs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 8 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 123, 124 (2011); Kuretski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-262; Clawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004- Moreover, it is well-established that a settlement officer may refuse to consider any collection alternatives if the taxpayer has a history of non-compliance, and is not in compliance with certain tax obligations. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111-112 (2007); Balsamo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-109. Additionally, the record shows that despite 13 petitioner's assertion, the deficiency notice was 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 properly mailed. She therefore was not entitled to contest the underlying liability for 2007 in this collection action, as she received the statutory deficiency notice. Petitioner also contends that respondent is required to conduct the hearing face-to-face. We disagree. We have consistently held that a face-to- face CDP hearing is not required under Section 6330. Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329(2000) (taxpayer not entitled to face-to-face hearing; telephone conference procedurally proper); Leineweber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17 (face-to-face 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 hearing not required; prior telephone·conversations and correspondence constituted CDP hearing). The failure to provide necessary financial documentation prevents a productive and meaningful communication about potential collection alternatives. Failure to provide such information alone is sufficient to sustain the determination the Appeals office made to proceed with the levy against the taxpayers. TGI Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-123. Respondent's settlement officer informed petitioner that before she could be afforded a face- to-face hearing, she needed to provide the Form 433-A and the supporting financial documentation. 15 Petitioner failed to supply the necessary form and 16 17 18 19 20 21 financial information. Petitioner has failed to advance arguments that allow us to conclude that the determination to sustain the proposed collection action was arbitrary, capricious or without sound basis in fact, or otherwise an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., 22 Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 112, 115 23 24 25 (2007). Respondent therefore has not abused any discretion in sustaining the collection action. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 10 1 Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination in 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 the Determination Notice. Petitioner has not raised any valid challenges to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousal defenses or otherwise offer any collection alternatives. See sec. 6330 (c) (2). Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b) (4). To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent, and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determination set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection 12 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, upon which this case is based, regarding petitioner's unpaid income tax liabilities for 2007. The order will also grant respondent's motion for summary judgment THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com