TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ronald Merriweather David & Loraine Stewart-David
Docket Number: 22230-16SL
Judge: Leyden
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/12/2018
Pages: 20

RMM UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RONALD MERRIWEATHER DAVID & LORAINE STEWART-DAVID, Petitioners, v. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 22230-16SL. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) 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 petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing in the above case before Special Trial Judge Diana L. Leyden at Detroit, Michigan, on February 13, 2018, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order and Decision will be entered granting respondent's motion to dismiss as to 2011 and 2012, respondent's motion to dismiss as to 2014 and 2015, and respondent's motion for summary judgment. (Signed) Diana L. Leyden Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 12, 2018 SERVED Mar 12 2018 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Diana L. Leyden February 13, 2018 Ronald Merriweather David & Loraine Stewart-David v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 22230-16SL 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. THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED 10 UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. See Rule 152(c), Tax 11 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 12 13 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal 14 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 15 16 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 17 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 18 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 19 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 20 21 22 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references 23 are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 24 The Court uses the term "Internal Revenue 25 Service" or "IRS" to refer to administrative actions taken À cribers 973)406-2250| operations@escribers.net j www.escribersnet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 outside of these proceedings. The Court uses the term "respondent" to refer to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is the head of the IRS and is respondent in this case, and to refer to actions taken in connection with this case. On October 13, 2016, petitioners filed a petition to review a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) and a Decision Letter on 10 Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (decision letter). The notice of determination sustained a proposed levy with respect to petitioners' unpaid tax liability for 2013, and the decision letter sustained a proposed levy with respect to petitioners' unpaid tax liabilities for 2011 and 2012. This matter is before the Court on respondent's three motions: (1) a motion to dismiss tax years 2011 and 2012, as supplemented; (2) a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to taxable years of 2014 and 2015, as supplemented; and (3) a motion for summary judgment, as supplemented, supported by a declaration submitted by Inez 22 Perales, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Office 23 24 25 settlement officer. Petitioners object to the granting of respondent's motions. Respondent's motions were called for hearing on 973)406-2250|operationseescribersmet|www.escribers.net February 12, 2018fin Detroit, Michigan. Petitioners appeared on their own behalf. Alissa VanderKooï appeared on behalf of respondent. For the reasons summarized below, the Court will grant respondent's motions. 5 Background The following facts are not in dispute and are drawn from the pleadings and other documents constituting the record on respondent's motions in this case as well as testimony from the parties at the hearing. Petitioners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 resided in the State of Michigan at the time they filed 11 12 13 14 15 16 their petition with the Court. Petitioners filed their Federal individual income tax return for 2013 late on October 29, 2015. That tax return reported a balance due to insufficient Federal income tax withholding. On December 21, 2015, the IRS assessed the tax due as well as section 6651(a)(1) and (2) W 17 additions to taxAfailure to timely file and timely pay and 18 interest. On that same day the IRS sent petitioners a 19 notice and demand for payment letter. Petitioners did not 20 make any payments. 21 22 23 24 The IRS subsequently issued petitioners a Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, dated March 28, 2016, with respect to the unpaid tax liability for 2013. On April 27, 2016, the IRS 25 received a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due (973)406-2250|operationscescribemnetlwww.escribers.net 6 Process or Equivalent Hearing, from petitioners. Petitioners listed 2011 and 2012 as the years at issue and challenged a proposed levy but enclosed, among other attachments, a copy of the Notice CP90 for 2013. The IRS had previously issued petitioners a Letter 11 notifying them of its intent to levy their property or rights to property with respect to their unpaid tax liabilities for 2011 and 2012. The Letter 11 was dated July 21, 2015. On the Form 12153 petitioners checked the boxes for an installment agreement and "I Cannot Pay Balance" as collection alternatives and also checked the boxes to request a lien withdrawal and innocent spouse relief. In the "other" section petitioners wrote: "Spouse is currently unemployed. The only income is opension [sic] and social security. We are financially unable to pay taxes in full at this time. We are requesting a hardship agreement." By letter dated May 20, 2016, the IRS notified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 petitioners that it had received their Form 12153. 20 According to the letter, the IRS was processing their 21 collection due process (CDP) hearing request for 2011, 22 2012, and 2013. It also notified petitioners that it had 23 not received a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse 24 Relief, and requested that petitioners submit one. 25 Petitioners' CDP hearing request was assigned to (973)406-2250|operationsgescribersmet|www.escnbersnet 7 Appeals Office settlement officer Inez Perales (SO), who confirmed she did not have prior involvement with petitioners for the tax or tax years at issue in this case. The SO determined that the Form 12153 was not timely filed with respect to the Letter 11 for 2011 and 2012 and treated it as a request for an equivalent hearing as to those years. The SO sent petitioners two letters dated June 20, 2016, to schedule a joint telephone CDP and equivalent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 hearing (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 11 12 13 14 hearing) for July 19, 2016. In those letters the SO requested petitioners' 2015 tax return in order to consider an installment agreement or an offer-in- compromise and a Form 656, Offer in Compromise, before the 15 hearing. The SO also notified petitioners that the 16 hearing was with respect the proposed levies and that 17 their request for a hearing with respect to a notice of 18 Federal tax lien was premature because the IRS had not 19 filed a notice of Federal tax lien at that time. Lastly, 20 21 22 23 24 the SO notified petitioners that they could raise any relevant issues during the hearing, including spousal defenses. Petitioners did not submit a 2015 tax return or a Form 656 before the hearing. The SO held the hearing on July 19, 2016, with 25 petitioner wife. During the hearing, petitioner wife cribers (973)406-2250loperations@escribersmet|www.escobersaet 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 proposed an installment agreement of $100 per month because she was no longer working. The SO requested that she submit a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals. Petitioner wife also explained that she had all of the information needed to file the 2015 tax return but requested additional time to file it. The SO gave petitioner wife until July 25, 2016, to submit by fax the 2015 tax return, a Form 433-A, and her proposed installment agreement request. Petitioner wife did not raise petitioners' requests for placement in currently not collectible status, a lien withdrawal, or innocent spouse relief during the hearing. On July 26, 2016, petitioners faxed a Form 433-A 15 and a Form 9465, Installment Agreement Request, to the SO. 16 Petitioners requested an installment agreement of $50 per 17 month. The Form 433-A reflected that petitioners had 18 disposable monthly income of $197 per month. Petitioners 19 did not submit a 2015 tax return. The SO determined that 20 petitioners were not eligible for an installment agreement 21 22 because they were not in compliance with their filing . requirements. The SO issued the notice of determination 23 and the decision letter, each dated September 13, 2016. 24 25 on their petition, as amended, petitioners listed 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 as the years at cribers (973)406-2250|operationscescribersmet|www.escnbers.net 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 issue and asserted that they faxed the 2015 tax return, a financial statement, and a request for an installment agreement to the SO on July 25, 2016. The IRS did not issue a statutory notice of deficiency to petitioners for either 2014 or 2015 or a notice of determination to petitioners with respect to either 2014 or 2015. At the hearing on respondent's motions, petitioners testified that they had filed their 2015 and 2016 tax returns but conceded that they owed taxes for both 2015 and 2016. 12 Discussion 13 14 15 A. Motions to Dismiss Generally, the Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise its jurisdiction only to the 16 extent authorized by Congress. See sec. 7442; Naftel v. 17 Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. 18 Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Jurisdiction must be 19 proven affirmatively, and a party invoking our 20 21 jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the Court has jurisdiction over the party's case. See Fehrs v. 22 Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree 23 Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960); 24 National Comm. to Secure Justice v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 25 837, 839 (1957). In order to meet this burden, the party cribers (973)406-2250|operationseescr:ibersmet|www.asaibers.net . 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to the Court's jurisdiction. See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. at 180; Consol. Cos. v. Commissioner, 15 B.T.A. 645, 651 (1929). In a case seeking review of a determination under section 6330, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the Appeals Office under section 6330. Sec. 6330(d) (1); Rule 330(b); offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). 1. Motion to Dismiss for 2011 and 2012 Petitioners dispute the Appeals Office's 13 decision letter, which sustains the proposed levy for 2011 14 15 16 and 2012. A request for a CDP hearing must be submitted to the Commissioner during the 30-day period beginning on the day the IRS is required to provide the taxpayer with 17 notice of a proposed levy. Sec. 6330(a) (3)(B); sec. 18 301.6330-l(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. 19 If the taxpayer does not request a CDP hearing 20 within the 30-day period, he forgoes the right to a CDP 21 22 hearing under section 6330. Sec. 301.6330-1(c)(2), Q&A- C7, Proced. & Admin. Regs. However, the taxpayer will be 23 offered an equivalent hearing when his late or untimely 24 request for a CDP hearing is made within a one-year period 25 after the 30-day period following the notice of the cobers 73)406-2250|operationsgescribers;netlwwvi.escribers.net proposed levy. Sec. 301.6330-1(c)(2), Q&A-C7, (i)(2), Q&A-I7, Proced. & Admin. Regs. After an equivalent hearing, which is held by the Appeals Office and generally follows the Appeals Office's procedures for a CDP hearing, 11 the Appeals Office will issue a decision letter. Sec. 301.6330-1(i)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. A decision letter is not a notice of determination sufficient to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under section 6330. Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 TC. 255, 262-263 (2001). The record suggests that petitioners' request for a CDP hearing on the proposed levy with respect to 2011 and 2012 was untimely. According to the Letter 11, dated July 21, 2015, petitioners had until August 20, 2015, to file a Form 12153. The IRS did not receive the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Form 12153 with respect to the Letter 11 for 2011 and 2012 16 until April 27, 2016, about eight months after the 30-day 17 period to timely file a request for a CDP hearing. The SO 18 19 therefore appropriately treated the Form 12153 as a request for an equivalent hearing and issued the decision 20 with respect to the proposed levy for 2011 and 2012. 21 22 23 24 Petitioners do not allege that their request for a CDP hearing on the proposed levy with respect to 2011 and 2012 was timely filed. The record does not contain evidence to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, the 25 Court will grant respondent's motion to dismiss as to 2011 Cribers (973)406-2250|operations@escribersinet|www.escribersaet and 2012 and will dismiss this case insomuch as it relates to the decision letter issued with respect to the proposed 12 levy for 2011 and 2012. 2. Motion to Dismiss for 2014 and 2015 Although in their amendment to their petition they allege that 2014 and 2015 are also at issue, petitioners did not check any of the boxes to identify the IRS notice or notices they dispute. In the motion to dismiss as to 2014 and 2015, respondent contends that this case should be dismissed as to 2014 and 2015 on the ground that no notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other notice for 2014 or 2015 was sent to petitioners that would confer jurisdiction on this Court in this case. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Petitioners have failed to affirmatively establish all 15 16 facts giving rise to the Court's jurisdiction for 2014 or 2015. Accordingly, the Court will grant respondent's 17 motion to dismiss as to 2014 and 2015 and will dismiss 18 19 20 this case insomuch as it relates to 2014 and 2015. B. Summary Judgment for 2013 Respondent's motion requests summary 21 adjudication in his favor under Rule 121. Having 22 dismissed petitioners' case as to 2011, 2012, 2014, and 23 2015, we review respondent's motion for summary judgment 24 25 for the remaining year at issue, 2013. Summary judgment is intended to expedite BM 73)406-2250[operations@escribers;net|www.escribers.net 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Rule 121(a). The Court may grant summary judgment only if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(a) and (b); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Respondent, as the moving party, bears the 10 burden of proving that no genuine dispute exists as to any 11 material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment 12 13 14 as a matter of law. FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 554, 559 (2000); Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36 (1993); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529. In 15 deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the factual 16 materials and inferences drawn from them must be 17 considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving 18 party. FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 559, 19 Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. at 36, Naftel v. 20 Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529. The party opposing a 21 22 summary judgment must set forth specific facts which show that a question of genuine material fact exists and may 23 not rely merely on allegations or denials in the pleading. 24 Rule 121, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 25 (1986); Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 } cribers (973)406-2250|operationsgescribersmet|wwwescribers.net 14 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); King v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1213, 1217 (1986); Shepherd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997- 555, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 645, at *7. Where the record viewed as a whole could not lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no "genuine issue for trial". Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 1. Hearings Under Section 6330 Section 6331(a) authorizes the Commissioner to levy upon property and property rights of a taxpayer liable for taxes who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after a notice and demand for payment is made. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Section 6331(d) provides that the levy authorized in 15 section 6331(a) may be made with respect to unpaid tax 16 only if the Commissioner has given written notice to the 17 18 taxpayer 30 days before the levy. Section 6330(a) requires the Commissioner to send a written notice to the 19 taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the 20 taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 21 22 days before the levy is begun. If a section 6330 hearing is requested, a 23 hearing is to be conducted by the Appeals Office and, at 24 the hearing, the officer conducting the hearing must 25 verify that the requirements of any applicable law or cribers (973)406-2250|operations@escribersnet|www.escribers.net . . . 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 administrative procedure have been met. Sec. 6330(b)(1), (c) (1). The taxpayer may raise at the hearing "any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy". Sec. 6330(c) (2) (A). A taxpayer may raise challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability at a CDP hearing if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to the underlying tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute that liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(JB); see Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 7-8 (2004). This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330(d) to review the Commissioner's administrative 14 determinations. Sec. 6330(d); Iannone v. Commissioner, 15 16 122 T.C. 287, 290 (2004). Where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews the 17 determination regarding the underlying tax liability de 18 19 novo. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). The Court reviews all other determinations for abuse of 20 discretion. Id. at 182. 21 22 Petitioners did not challenge the underlying tax liability for 2013 in the Form 12153, during the CDP 23 hearing, or in their petition. The Court therefore 24 reviews the Appeals Office's determination for abuse of 25 discretion. Cribers 73)406-2250|operations@escribersmetlwww.escribersnet 2. No Abuse of Discretion Whether an abuse of discretion has occurred 16 depends upon whether the exercise of discretion is without reasonable basis in fact or law. Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 23 (2005); Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 367, 371 (1995). An abuse of discretion occurs if the Appeals Office exercises its discretion "arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law." Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19, 23 (1999). Nothing in our review of the 11 administrative record supports a finding that the Appeal 12 Office's determination to deny petitioners' request for an 13 installment agreement and to sustain the proposed levy was 14 arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 law. On the Form 12153 petitioners requested an installment agreement and checked the box for "I Cannot Pay Balance", which can signal a request for placement in currently not collectible status. In her letter dated June 20, 2016, the SO requested that petitioners submit a 2015 tax return before the scheduled CDP hearing, but 22 petitioners did not do so. During the CDP hearing, the SO 23 24 25 allowed petitioners additional time to submit a 2015 tax return, but they did not file one. In their petition, petitioners assert that they (973)406-2250|operations@escribers;net|wwwescribers.net 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 faxed a 2015 tax return to the SO on July 25, 2016, along with the financial statement (Form 433-A) and request for the installment agreement (Form 9465). The record on respondent's motion shows that the SO received the Form 433-A and Form 9465 but does not show receipt of the 2015 tax return from petitioners. A Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, for 2015 shows that a 2015 tax return was filed with the IRS on December 27, 2016, more than two months after the IRS issued the notice of determination to petitioners with respect to the proposed levy for 2013. Petitioners have not set forth specific facts that show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue. IRS guidelines with respect to collection 15 alternatives direct that the taxpayer must be in current 16 compliance with filing to be eligible for a collection 17 alternative. See, e.g., McLaine v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 18 19 20 21 228, 243 (2012); Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. at 115-116; Cavazos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-257, 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 256, at *16-19. Accordingly, the SO did not abuse her discretion in determining that 22 petitioners were not eligible for an installment agreement 23 after their failure to submit the requested 2015 tax return. 24 25 It was also not an abuse of discretion for the Cribers (973)406-2250|operations@escribersmet|www.escribersaet 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SO to deny petitioners' request for placement in currently not collectible status. A tax account may be placed in currently not collectible status for a variety of reasons, including for hardship. See IRM pt. 5.16.1.2(1) (Jan. 1, 2016). "A hardship exists if a taxpayer is unable to pay reasonable basic living expenses." IRM pt. 5.16.1.2.9(1) (Aug. 25, 2014). A hardship determination is made on the basis of the taxpayer's asse , equity in those assets, income, and expenses generally reported on Form 433-A. 10 Id. Hardship cases generally involve taxpayers with no 11 12 13 14 15 income or assets, no equity in assets, or insufficient income to make any payments without causing hardship. Id. The IRM further provides that "[a]n account should not be reported as CNC [(currently not collectible)] if the taxpayer has income or equity in assets, and enforced 16 collection of the income or assets would not cause 17 hardship." Id. 18 19 20 21 22 Here, the information petitioners reported in the Form 433-A showed that they had disposable monthly income of $197 per month. As a result, petitioners were not eligible for placement in currently not collectible status. Accordingly, the SO did not abuse her discretion 23 in denying petitioners' request for placement in currently 24 not collectible status. 25 Lastly, petitioners requested a lien withdrawal cribers (973)406-2250|operations@escribersaiet|wwmesaibers.net 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and innocent spouse relief on the Form 12153. The Court can only consider on review an issue that was properly raised at the CDP hearing. Sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. In the letter dated May 20, 2016, the IRS requested that petitioners submit a Form 8857 to request innocent spouse relief. Likewise in her letter dated June 20, 2016, the SO notified petitioners that they could raise any relevant issues during the CDP hearing, including spousal defenses. In that same letter the SO 10 notified petitioners that the CDP hearing was with respect 11 12 the proposed levy for 2013 and that their request for a CDP hearing with respect to a notice of Federal tax lien 13 was premature because the IRS had not filed a notice of 14 Federal tax lien at that time. Petitioners did not 15 16 request a withdrawal of a notice of Federal tax lien or raise the issue of innocent spouse relief and did not 17 provide the SO with any documentation to support a 18 withdrawal of a notice of Federal tax lien filing or a 19 claim for innocent spouse relief. The SO therefore did 20 not abuse her discretion in denying petitioners' requests. 21 22 3. Verification It is well settled that no particular form of 23 verification is required, that no particular document need 24 25 be provided to taxpayers at a hearing conducted under section 6330, and that Forms 4340, Certificate of MEllllE (973)406-2250|operations@escribers;net|www.escribers.net 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, and transcripts of accounts maybe used to satisfy the requirements of section 6330(c)(1). Roberts v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365, 371 n.10 (2002), aff'd, 329 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2003); Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 187 (2001). The horm/ 4340, transcripts, and 8 materials that are referenced in and/or attached as 9 exhibits to respondent's motion and accompanying 10 declaration, along with the statements in the notice of 11 determination, show that required assessment and 12 13 collection procedures were followed. The IRS asserted section 6651(a)(1) and (2) 14 additions to tax failure to timely file and timely pay for 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2013. Each of these additions to tax is excluded from supervisory approval requirements of section 6751(b)(1). See sec. 6751(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, the recent opinion in Graev v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. No. 23 (Dec. 20, 2017) is not implicated. C. Conclusion In sum the Court will grant respondent's motion to dismiss as to 2011 and 2012 and will dismiss this case 23 insomuch as it relates to the decision letter issued with 24 25 respect to 2011 and 2012. The Court will also grant respondent's motion to dismiss as to 2014 and 2015 and cribers (973)406-2250|operations@escribersmet|www.escribers.net 1 will dismiss the case insomuch as it relates to 2014 and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2015. Having dismissed this case as to 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015, the Court concludes that there is no genuine dispute of material fact in this case as to 2013 and grants respondent's motion for summary judgment in that respondent may proceed with the proposed levy in respect to petitioners' unpaid tax liability for 2013, as determined in the notice of determination upon which this 10 case is based. 11 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT 12 AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) (973}406-2250|operations@escribersaiet|wwwescribers.net