TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ross Harvey King
Docket Number: 18723-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/01/2008
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 ROSS HARVEY KING , Petitioner , V . Docket No . 18723-07 S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) S .T . JUDGE Respondent . O R D E R 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 trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at San Diego, California, on October 22, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order will be issued continuing the case and denying respondent's motion without prejudice . (Signed ) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . December 1, 2008 SERVED Dec 02 2008 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 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o October 22, 2008 Ross Harvey King v . Commissione r Docket No . : 18723-07 S THE COURT : The Court has decided to rende r oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d the following represents the Court's oral findings o f fact and opinion . Unless otherwise noted, section reference s contained in this bench opinion are to the Interna l Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period . Rule references are to the Tax Cour t Rules of Practice and Procedure . This Section 6330(d) proceeding is conducte d as a Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions o f Section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175 . This benc h opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted b y Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . This bench opinio n shall not be cited as precedent in any othe r proceeding . This case is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss as Moot, filed May 30 , 2008 . Petitioner's objection to Respondent's motio n was filed September 29, 2008 . A hearing was conducte d on Respondent's motion on October 20, 2008 in San Diego, California . Ross Harvey King, who resided i n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 California at the time the petition was filed , 2 appeared pro se . Karen Nicholson Sommers appeared on 3 behalf of Respondent . 4 The underlying facts in this case relevant 5 to the resolution of Respondent's motion are not in 6 dispute and easily summarized . On or about February 7 5, 2007, Respondent caused to be filed a Notice o f 8 Federal Tax Lien (NFTL ) with respect to Petitioner's -2o°s AK- 9 then outstanding 2004 and federal income taxe s 10 and related amounts (Petitioner's income ta x 11 liabilities) . Ten days later (a period that does not 12 appear to be in compliance with Section 6320(a)(2)), 13 Petitioner was notified of the event in a manne r 14 contemplated by Section 6320(a)(3) . In response, 15 Petitioner timely requested and participated in an 16 administrative hearing in which he challenged th e 17 appropriateness of the filing of the above-referenced 18 NFTL . See Section 6320(b) . 19 Petitioner did not challenge the existence 20 or the amounts of his income tax liabilities at th e 21 administrative hearing . Instead, he took the position 22 there, as he does in this proceeding, that the filing 23 of the NFTL violated an understanding, if not a n 24 agreement, that he had with Respondent regarding how 25 those liabilities would be paid . Petitioner's Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 presentation suggests but hardly establishes th e 2 existence of a formal installment agreement between 3 Petitioner and Respondent at the time the NFTL was 4 filed . See Section 6159 . 5 Furthermore, we cannot tell from what has 6 been submitted when Petitioner's request for th e 7 administrative hearing had been made, or how and when 8 that hearing was conducted . It is clear, however , 9 that by the time the notice of determination that 10 forms the basis for this case was issued on July 26, 11 2007, Petitioner had paid the income tax liabilities 12 (payment on April 11, 2007) and a Release of Federal 13 Tax Lien had been filed (May 15, 2007) . 14 At the administrative hearing, Petitioner 15 apparently took the position, as he does here, that 16 under the circumstances, Respondent should withdraw 17 the NFTL because of a prior agreement with Respondent . 18 See Section 6325(j)(1)(B) . As noted, we cannot tell 19 from what has been submitted thus far whether a formal 20 installment agreement was in effect, or if so, whether 21 any provisions of that agreement addressed the filing 22 of an NFTL . 23 Petitioner's income tax liabilities might 24 very well have been paid and the NFTL released before 25 the administrative hearing took place . In any event , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 on July 26, 2007, after those income tax liabilities 2 had actually been paid, and after the release of the 3 Notice of Federal Tax Lien, on July 26, 2007, the 4 notice of determination that forms the basis for this 5 case was issued . We cannot tell specifically wha t 6 determinations have been made in that notice, or upon 7 what grounds, because that document has not thus far 8 been made part of the record . 9 At the hearing on the motion here unde r 10 consideration, Petitioner pressed his entitlement to 11 having Respondent withdraw the NFTL, arguing that the 12 release was not sufficient to correct any advers e 13 consequences to his credit that might result from the 14 filing of the NFTL . Consistent with statements made 15 in Respondent's motion, at the hearing, Responden t 16 took the position that, because Petitioner' s income 17 tax liabilities had been paid, the case is moot and 18 must be dismissed as such . 19 In theory, Respondent's motion seems to be 20 well-made . See Gerakios v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 21 2004-203 (noting that under circumstances more or less 22 similar to those here, "We generally have n o 23 jurisdiction" to grant relief in response to a 24 taxpayer's claim that the filing of an NFTL adversely 25 affected that taxpayer's credit rating) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the result i n 2 Gerakios was supported by a record substantially more 3 complete than the record made thus far in this case . 4 Consequently, we are reluctant at this time to resolve 5 the case upon summary disposition in a manne r 6 consistent with that case . 7 We are concerned that we have not had the 8 opportunity to review the July 26, 2007 notice o f 9 determination that forms the basis for this case . We 10 cannot tell whether Respondent's failure to comply 11 with the timing requirements set forth in Sectio n 12 6320(a)(2), which failure is apparent from the review 13 of what relevant documents have been made available to 14 the Court, was addressed or explained by Respondent's 15 settlement officer . After all, pursuant to th e 16 statutory scheme, Respondent's settlement officer is 17 required to "obtain verification from the Secretary 18 that the requirements of any applicable law o r 19 administrative procedure have been met" before an y 20 collection action is sustained . Section 6330(c)(1) .(cid:127) 21 More troubling, we cannot tell whether the 22 settlement officer considered the consequences of any 23 installment agreement that might have been in effect 24 between Petitioner and Respondent at the time the NFTL 25 was filed . Simply put, the record is not yet complet e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 enough to allow for the summary disposition sought in 2 Respondent's motion . 3 To reflect the foregoing, an order will be 4 issued continuing the case and denying Respondent's 5 motion without prejudice . 6 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion in this case . 8 (Whereupon, at 3 :53 p .m ., the bench opinion 9 in the above-entitled matter was adjourned . ) 10 11 12 // 13 // 14 // 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 / / 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888