TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Deloris Allen
Docket Number: 27537-11L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/17/2013
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 DELORIS ALLEN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Docket No. 27537-11L 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 case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate decision will be entered. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, D.C. January 17, 2013 SERVED JAN 2 3 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa December 13, 2012 3 Deloris Allen v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Docket No. 27537-11L 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 as amended and 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 the proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid tax liability for 2007. This matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. The 21 Court scheduled respondent's motion for a hearing on 22 the Court's trial session in San Francisco, 23 California commencing December 10, 2012. The Court 24 25 also ordered petitioner to file a response or an objection to respondent's motion by October 12, 2012. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 Petitioner failed to file a response or objection as 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ordered. Petitioner appeared on her own behalf. Shannon Edelstone appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in California at the time she filed the collection review petition. Petitioner filed a return for 2007 reporting less than $2,000 of income. Respondent determined that petitioner had $11,920 of unreported wages and $5,166 of unreported non-employee compensation for 2007. Respondent issued petitioner a deficiency notice determining a $1,565 deficiency and a $391 late-filing addition. As petitioner did not petition this Court with respect to the deficiency, respondent assessed petitioner's income tax liability for 2007. Petitioner failed to pay the assessed amount so respondent issued to petitioner a Letter 1058, entitled "Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing," for the outstanding tax liability for 2007. In response to the levy notice, 25 petitioner requested a hearing (CDP hearing). 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 Respondent allowed petitioner to challenge the underlying tax liability at the CDP hearing because the settlement officer assigned to the case was unable to confirm that petitioner had received the deficiency notice. During the telephonic hearing, petitioner challenged the underlying tax liability and indicated that she thought she did not receive enough income to have a filing requirement for 2007. The settlement officer explained that petitioner had a filing requirement. Petitioner agreed to file an amended return for 2007. The amended return resulted in a smaller deficiency and a smaller late filing addition. The settlement officer also informed petitioner during the hearing that the collection alternatives petitioner had available to her included an installment agreement or being placed in currently-not- collectible status. For the settlement officer to consider any alternatives, however, petitioner needed to submit financial information and file the delinquent returns for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Petitioner failed to provide the financial information. Without the requested information and required documents, the settlement officer issued a notice of determination permitting the proposed levy 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 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 to proceed to collect the smaller tax liability for 2007. Petitioner timely filed the collection review petition. We held a hearing on respondent's summary judgment motion at our San Francisco, California trial session on December 10, 2012. Petitioner appeared. Instead of providing a response or objection to respondent's summary judgment motion, petitioner submitted a motion to dismiss without prejudice. She then argued that her motion made respondent's summary judgment motion moot. We agree with petitioner except that the 13 motion should be with prejudice, not without 14 15 16 17 18 19 prejudice. Granting petitioner's motion to dismiss would have the effect of treating the petition in this case as if it had never been filed. See Wagner v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 330 (2002). As the statutory period under section 6330(d) (1) has expired in which petitioner may file (or refile) a Tax Court 20 petition based on the determination notice in this 21 22 23 24 25 case, respondent may take all appropriate collection action provided by law. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order will be issued granting petitioner's motion to dismiss with prejudice and sustaining the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 determinations set forth in the Notice of 2 Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under 7 Section 6320 and/or 6330, upon which this case is based, regarding the unpaid tax liabilities for 2007. The order will also deny respondent's motion for summary judgment as moot. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 10:13 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 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