TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Sinforino & Ofelia S. Ruiz
Docket Number: 26604-11L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/31/2013
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 SINFORINO & OFELIA S. RUIZ, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORD ER Docket No. 26604-11L Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in San Francisco, California on December 13, 2012, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the cáse was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fáct and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, D.C. January 31, 2013 SERVED JAN 3 1 200 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa December 13, 2012 3 Sinforino & Ofelia S. Ruiz v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Docket No. 26604-11L 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 in section 7459(b) and Rule 152 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2007, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This collection review case is before us on respondent's motion for summary judgment concerning a lien filing to collect from petitioners their unpaid income tax for 2007 The Court scheduled respondent's 20 motion for a hearing in San Francisco, California. 21 22 23 Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing nor did they file a Rule 50(c) statement. Matt 24 Carlson appeared on behalf of respondent. 25 FINDINGS OF FACT 866.488.DEPO www.CapitaIReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 The record reflects the following facts. 2 Petitioners resided in California when they filed the 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 collection review petition. Petitioners filed a return for 2007, respondent examined the return and determined in a statutory deficiency notice that petitioners owed approximately 75000 of income tax and were liable for an accuracy-related penalty. Petitioners filcd to file a petition to challenge the determinations in the deficiency notice. Respondent thereafter assessed the taxes. Petitioners failed to pay the assessed amount for 2007. Respondent then sent petitioners a 14 Notice of Federal Tax Lien filing and Your Right to a 15 Hearing advising petitioners that respondent sought 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to collect petitioners' unpaid taxes for 2007 and informing petitioners that they could receive a CDP hearing. Petitioners timely filed a request for a hearing in response to the lien notice. Petitioners did not, however, challenge the underlying liability. Instead, they challenged the tax lien and requested that it be discharged. They also asked that they be given an opportunity to make an offer in compromise. The settlement officer assigned to petitioners' hearing scheduled a telephonic hearing 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 and requested that petitioners provide financial information so the officer could consider any collection alternatives. The settlement officer also asked petitioners to show proof of making estimated tax payments and providing copies of their delinquent returns for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Petitioners failed to participate in the hearing, failed to provide any financial information to the settlement officer, failed to submit Form 433 regarding petitioners' finances and failed to submit Form 656 regarding an offer in compromise. The settlement officer agreed to give petitioners an additional 14 days to submit the financial 14. information, appropriate forms and supporting 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 documentation. Petitioners failed to.provide the requested information or documents. Thus, respondent issued petitioners a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under Section 6320 and/or 6330 sustaining the lien notice to collect the unpaid tax liability for 2007. Petitioners timely filed a collection review petition with this Court. As stated previously, respondent filed a summary judgment motion, petitioners failed to file a response or objection to respondent's motion, and 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company petitioners failed to attend the schedules hearing on respondent's motion in San Francisco, California, on 6 December 10, 2012. 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other acceptable material show 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); Elec. Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). The moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 162 (2002). Respondent has met his burden. We begin with the standard of review. Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). We must decide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or without sound basis in fact of 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 that the collection action should proceed with respect to petitioners' unpaid liabilities for 2007. The record reflects that the settlement officer properly verified that all the legal and procedural requirements had been met. The settlement 16 officer confirmed, using a transcript of petitioners' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 account, that the assessment was properly made for 2007, that an appropriate and timely notice was sent regarding the assessment, and that petitioners were properly informed of their rights with respect to the lien action. Petitioners failed to participate in the scheduled phone conference, submit any documents or otherwise communicate with the settlement officer. 25 Petitioners presented neither a Form 433 or Form 656. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 In addition, petitioners failed to file Federal income tax returns for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and thus failed to provide copies to the settlement officer as requested. We have frequently and consistently held that an officer does not abuse any discretion if the taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested information. Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 79 (2005). This lack of information precluded the settlement officer from determining whether petitioners qualified under section 6325(b) to have the lien discharged. It is similarly established that a settlement officer commits no abuse of discretion if the taxpayers are noncompliant with the tax laws or are noncompliant with the current tax obligations . 15 Martino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-43 at 12-13; 16 Londono v. Cominissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000 257 c 7.. OL 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Petitioners have not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that respondent abused his discretion. We therefore conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in sustaining respondent's lien filing to collect from petitioners their outstanding tax liability for 2007. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent and an appropriate order will 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 be issued granting respondent's motion for summary judgment and sustaining the determination set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection 4 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, upon which 9 this.case is based, regarding the unpaid tax liabilities for 2007. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded. ) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 2 4 2 5 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com