TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Clemmie Lee Pennington
Docket Number: 19115-17SL
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/12/2019
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 DRC CLEMMIE LEE PENNINGTON, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 19115-17SL. ) ) ) ) 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 of the hearing in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Birmingham, Alabama containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 17, 2018, will be granted and a decision entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 12, 2019 SERVED Feb 12 2019 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke January 9, 2019 3 Clemmie Lee Pennington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 19115-17sL 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of 11 12 13 the Internal Revenue Codeg in effect, when the petition p was filed, ursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court. And this 14 opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on respondent's 17 motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121 of the 18 19 20 21 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 and section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Rule references throughout this opinion are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 22 Procedure, and section references are to the Internal 23 Revenue Code. 24 25 This case involves petitioner's challenge to respondent's attempt to collect via lien liabilities which the petitioner owes regarding income tax. 4 The respondent . and the petitioner have made clear that there is no dispute in this case regarding the underlying liabilities. Therefore, the Court reviews the determination to sustain the lien made by the Appeals Division of the Internal Revenue Service on the basis of abuse of discretion. Petitioner's position is summarized in the response to the summary judgment, wherein the petitioner does not challenge the underlying facts, as stated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 previously, but rather argues that petitioner's request 11 12 for a lump sum payment offer aml compromise, which was en TE rejected prior to the pending lien action, should have 13 been renegotiated by respondent. And on that basis, 14 petitioner believes that he is entitled to challenge the 15 16 17 lien action. At the time the petitioner submitted a request for a special lump sum payment offer ÅÑd compromise, he 18 was paying $25 a month to the Internal Revenue Service. 19 He heard an ad that, under certain circumstances, 20 21 22 23 24 25 taxpayers could be relieved of their tax obligations, and he responded to that ad and agreed to pay $3,000 to a firm that submitted a lump sum payment offer and compromise in the amount of $100. This offer and compromise was rejected by the IRS Appeals Office, and that rejection was confirmed in a letter sent to the petitioner, dated August (973}406-2250|operationseeserbersnetlwww.esadbersnet 22nd, 2016. 5 He then entered into an agreement with the IRS and agreed to pay $250 a month, and that offer a d compromise was approved. That offer and compromise was then followed by the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien which precipitated the hearing in question in this case. At that hearing, which was conducted by the IRS Appeals Division on July 3rd, 2017, petitioner sought to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 discuss his previously filed offer d compromise, which 11 12 was rejected. This previous offer and compromise had not been submitted to the appeals officer, but the appeals 13 officer, nevertheless, informed petitioner that he had a 14 partial payment agreement in place and, because of the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 type of payment plan that he had in place, that a Federal tax lien was required and that if the petitioner wished to revisit the offer à compromise process, he needed to T submit a new Form 656, along with a Form 433 information statement. The petitioner did not submit this information in a timely manner, and the settlement officer issued the 22 notice of determination, which precipitated our 23 24 25 jurisdiction in the present matter. Since the issue before us is simply whether the IRS abused discretion in not releasing or removing the cribers (973)4064250|operationsgescrbersmet|wwur.escribersmet Federal tax lien, which had been filed and precipitated the collection and due process hearing, we first investigate whether the petitioner has offered any basis 6 on which the lien should be removed. Under section 6323(j) and section 6159, a Federal tax lien without full payment may be withdrawn without prejudice if the Federal tax lien was filed prematurely or otherwise not in accordance with IRS procedures. The taxpayer entered into an installment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 agreement under section 6159. Withdrawal of the Federal 11 12 tax lien would facilitate collection of the tax liability, and the National Taxpayer Advocate consents to the 13 withdrawal of the Federal tax lien because it is in the 14 best interest of the taxpayer and the United States. 15 16 Mere allegations that the Federal tax lien should not have been filed are insufficient to require the 17 withdrawal of a notice of Federal tax lien filing. 18 Bergdale v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2014-152. 19 20 We also note that petitioner's arguments relative to the original offer aad compromise are 21 misplaced in that he subsequently agreed to the payment of 22 $250 a month, which subverts the reasonableness of his 23 original offer and compromise for a lump sum payment of 24 only $100. It's unfortunate in this situation that the 25 petitioner was taken in by irresponsible representatives cribers 973)4%2250loperationseeserbersmetlwurwesodbersnet and paid $3,000 or agreed to pay $3,000 to seek a 7 resolution of his tax case, which was too good to be true in all likelihood. But in any event, he has not established any basis on which we can accept his argument that the notice of Federal tax lien should be withdrawn. And the position of the Internal Revenue Service d'filed in the notice of Federal tax lien, to protect the revenue, was valid and properly balanced the IRS' need to collect the tax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 liability with petitioner's personal situation. He 11 maintains that the notice of Federal tax lien could affect 12 his credit, which is probably true. But the fact that he 13 owes significant Federal taxes requires that the Internal 14 Revenue Service be permitted to protect their position 15 with respect to real property, which he admitted at the 16 hearing he owns. Given our determination, the decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:27 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 en)452250loperatkmseescrasersnetlwww.escribmaet