TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Darrell Reed Blackham
Docket Number: 8566-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/10/2009
Pages: 8

It gvvj\ rp- KU-V-PA UNITED STATES TAX, COURT WASHINGTON, D.C . 2021 7 DARRELL REED BLACKHAM , Petitioner , V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 trial of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Salt Lake City, Utah on March 18, 2009, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the hearing on respondent's motion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, order and decision will be entered foi -respondent . (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . April 10, 2009 VED APR 10 2009 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa March 18, 200 9 2 Darrell Reed Blackham v . Commissione r Docket No . 8566-07 L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render oral 4 findings of fact and opinion i this case, and the following 5 represents the Court's oral f i .dings of fact and opinion . 6 These oral findings of fact a n opinion shall not be relied 7 upon as precedent in any othe r case . 8 This bench opinion i s made pursuant to th e 9 authority granted by Section 7 59(b) and Rule 152 . Al l 10 section references are to the nternal Revenue Code, and all 11 rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d 12 Procedure . 13 This is a collection eview case involving the 14 proposed lien to collect Petit oner's unpaid tax liability 15 for 2001, which year shall be eferred to as the "year a t 16 issue . " 17 Petitioner Darrell R e d Blackham appeared pro se . 18 R . Craig Schneider appeared o n behalf of Respondent . 19 . 20 FINDING S OF FAC T The record establishe the following, or the . 21 parties do not dispute the fo l owing : 22 Petitioner resided i n New Mexico at the time he 23 filed the petition in this co l ection review proceeding . 24 Petitioner failed t o ile a federal income tax 25 return for 2001, and the Commi sioner prepared a substitute Heritage Repor t (202) 6 ng Corporatio n 8-4888 4 1 for return for that year . 2 Respondent sent a defi iency notice to Petitioner 3 for 2001 based upon the substit to for return Responden t 4 prepared and sent a deficiency otice to Petitioner's last 5 known address . Petitioner requ sted a hearing, onc e 6 Respondent issued a notice of i tent to file a lien, which 7 again was mailed to Petitioner's address . In none of the 8 documents filed with Respondent did Petitioner ever deny 9 that he received a deficiency notice, nor did he ever 10 contest the underlying liability . At trial, however , 11 Petitioner now argues that he did not . receive a deficiency 12 notice for 2001 . . Petitioner di not make this argument 13 until Respondent contacted him to inform him that he was 14 filing a motion for summary Judgment in this case . 15 'Petitioner argues that he never received a 16 statutory notice because his transcript does not bear the 17 transaction code 949, which he understood meant that the 18 Commissioner failed to issue him a stat notice . Ms . Carol 19 Orr .testified, however, that transaction code 949-is used 20 only in limited situations . Ms . Orr further explained that 21 Petitioner received a statutory notice for 2001, as well as 22 2002 . The transcript for 2002 bears the same transaction 23 code as does 2001 . The only difference between the tw o 24 years is that Respondent is not able to find the deficiency 25 notice for 2001, while he can ocate the deficiency notice Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 6 8-4888 1 for 2002, which is not disput e We are convinced that 2 Petitioner received a statut o notice for 2001 from 3 Respondent based upon the rec o d . 4 Respondent filed a no ice of federal tax lien wit h 5 respect to Petitioner's unpaid taxes for 2001, an d 6 Respondent mailed to Petitione a notice of federal tax lien 7 filing and notice of your righ to a hearing. . Petitioner 8 timely filed a-request for a h aring with Respondent . 9 Petitioner did not raise the i sue of never having receive d 10 a notice of deficiency during is hearing with Respondent, 11 and in fact, it appears that h admitted having received th e 12 stat notice at this hearing . orrespondence from Respondent 13 to Petitioner encouraged, Peti t oner to file tax returns for 14 the .years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 so they could discus s 15 collection alternatives . 1 6 sued Petitioner a notice o f 17 determination for 2001 on Marc 2007 . The notic e 18 indicated that the appeals of f cer had verified that all 19 legal and administrative proce ural requirements had been 20 met, and that Petitioner offer d no collection alternatives 21 and raised no non-frivolous is ues that required responses . 22 The appeals officer determined that the proposed collection 23 action appropriately balanced he need to collect the tax , 24 and was not an intrusive actio Accordingly, the notice 25 determined that the lien shou l proceed . Heritage Report (202) 6 ng Corporation 8-4888 6 1 Petitioner filed a pet ition with the Court . 2 OPINION We begin with the stan,Lard of review . Where the 4 validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at 5 issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis . 6' Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 ( 2000 ) . Where the 7 validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly 8 placed at issue, the Court will review Respondent's 9 determination for abuse of dis c retion . Secro v . 10 Commissioner , supra ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176 , 4 11 181-182 ( 2000 ) . We must decide whether Respondent exercise d 12 his discretion arbitrarily, cap riciously, or without soun d 13 basis in fact or law . See Woo ral v . Commissioner , 112 T'.C . 14 19, 23 (1999) ; Fargo v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo 2004-13 . 15 A taxpayer may challenge the existence or th e 16 amount of the underlying tax lil ability at the CDP hearing or 17 in a subsequent court proceeding under Section 6330 , 18 provided he or she did not receive a statutory notice of 19 deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity t o 20 dispute such tax liability . See Sec . 6330(c)(2)(B) ; Goza v . 21 Commissioner , su ra 22 The statute contemplates actual receipt of the 23 deficiency notice . Tatum v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo 24 2003-115 . A taxpayer cannot circumvent the actual receipt 25 requirement by deliberately avoiding delivery, however . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 Sego v . Commissioner, , supra ; Balxter v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo 2001-300 . Petitioner asserts th t he never received a notic e 2 3 4 of deficiency . Petitioner als asserts that he can prov e 5 that he never received a stat otice because his transcript 6 does not contain the transaction code 949 . There is a 7 presumption of official regularity and of delivery that 8 arises when the Commissioner presents evidence tha t 9 deficiency notices were sent by, certified mail to th e 10 taxpayer's last known address . See Sego v . Commissioner , 11 supra ; Hochschild v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo 2002-195 ; Carey 12 v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo .2002-209 ; Baxter v . Commissioner , 13 sup . ty 14 Respondent has introd ced evidence that th e 1 5 16 deficiency notice was mailed tb Petitioner's last know n address by certified mail . Re pondent's evidence consists 17 of a Form 4340 and a certifie d mail list bearing United 18 States Postal Service date sta ps . Respondent furthe r 19 argues that there is no evide n e that the deficiency notice 20 was returned . Moreover, no tr nsaction code 949 was used 21 for 2002, and the record ref le is that a statutory notice 22 was issued to Petitioner for 2 E 02 . 23 Petitioner offers onl his statements that he did 24 not receive the deficiency not ce, and offers no evidence to 25 support his allegation . We a r mindful that Petitioner has Heritage Report (202) 6 ng Corporatio n 8-4888 8 raised only frivolous argument in the past (see Docket Number 7849-05) and that he failed to raise this issue at the hearing . Any issue not raised at the hearing is deemed .conceded . Ma ana v . Commissio er, 118 T .C . 488, 493 (2002 . Petitioner simply has not produced credible factual assertions to overcome the strong presumption of proper mailing and delivery . Figler . Commissioner, T .C . Memo 2005-230 . Petitioner has failed to establish that he did not receive the deficiency notice . Moreover, we are satisfied that the transaction code 949 is rare and unusual . We conclude that Petitioner is presumed to have received the deficiency notice, and may not challenge the underlyin g .liability for 2001 . Petitioner also has n t raised any other challenges to the appropriateness of colt ction, did not assert any spousal defenses, or otherwise offer any collectio n alternatives . See Sec . 6330( c (2) . Accordingly, these Rule 331(b) (4) . We therefore conclud e that the Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in up olding Respondent's lien action to collect outstanding ax liabilities fo r Petitioner's 2001 tax year . reflect the foregoing ., an appropriate order will be issu d sustaining th e determinations set forth in t h notice of determination concerning collection action s nder Section 6320 and/or Heritage Report (202) 6 ng Corporatio n 8-4888 3 4 5 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 23 24 25 9 1 6330, dated March 9, 2007 , upon which this case is based , 2 regarding the year 2001 . 3 This concludes the Court' s oral findings of fac t 4 and opinion in this case . 5 (Whereupon, at 10 :08 a .m . ., the bench opinion in the 6 above-entitled case was concluded . ) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888