TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Grace Anne Graylow
Docket Number: 3427-18
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/22/2020
Pages: 5

CT UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 GRACE ANNE GRAYLOW, Petitioner(s), v. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 3427-18. 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at San Francisco, California 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, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 22, 2020 SERVED Jan 22 2020 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke 3 January 10, 2020 Grace Anne Graylow v. Commissioner Docket No. 3427-18 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 opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section references in the remainder of this opinion are to the Internal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Revenue Code in effect for the period before us in this 15 case. This case is based upon a Notice of Deficiency 16 determining an Income Tax liability against the Petitioner 17 18 19 20 for the year 2014 in the amount of $406. The case was called for trial and Petitioner appeared. The only evidence submitted at trial were certain agreed exhibits. These included the Notice of 21 Deficiency; a computerized version of the Income Tax 22 Return submitted by the Petitioner, 4/20/10y a Form 4549, 23 dated August 30, 2017 based upon the signatures associated 24 with the form; a Form 4549, dated April 11, 2017; a Form 25 4549, dated July 18, 2017; and information submitted by cribers 1973)406-2250|operationseesc,iters.net|www.escribers.net the Petitioner, including a copy of a business card of Elaine Murphy, a group manager in the Examination Division 4 of the Internal Revenue Service; together with another Form 4549, dated June 9, 2017; and various other information including Petitioner's explanation for her position, which was submitted to the Court. At the trial Petitioner did not testify, but rather made argument, and she was permitted to submit some additional supplementary exhibits after the trial, which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 were entered into the record. Petitioner does not contest 11 12 13 the liability as determined in the Notice of Deficiency based upon any provisions in the Internal Revenue Code or the failure of the determination to be in accord with the 14 Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather she 15 asserts that Respondent should be bound by the Form 4549, 16 which was provided to her by Ms. Murphy dated June 9, 17 18 2017, which reflects an overpayment in the amount of $255. Based upon our analysis of the forms submitted 19 and the arguments made by the Petitioner, uc bcilwc this JRF 20 form was not executed by Petitioner's husband until August 21 22 30, 2017, and that after the June 9, 2017 date superseding Forms 4549 were issued by the Internal Revenue Service, 23 which included forms consistent with the tax liabilities 24 shown in the Notice of Deficiency. Regardless, 25 Petitioner's arguments that the Internal Revenue Service critiers (R 406-2250loperations@escribetsmet|www.escribersaet should be bound by the initial Form 4549, which she has relied upon, is misguided. Forms 4549 evidence only the consent of the taxpayer to the immediate assessment or 5 collection of tax deficiency or the consent of the taxpayer to a determination of the amount of an overpayment. They are not closing agreements under section 7121. Section 7121 provides for binding closing agreements between the IRS and the taxpayer with respect to tax liabilities. If such an agreement is executed, it is binding upon the parties in the case and can be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 modified only a showing of fraud or malfeasance or 13 misrepresentation. Section 7121(b). The law is clear 14 15 16 that a Form 4549 is not such a closing agreement and is not subject to the provisions of section 7121(b). Hudock v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 351, 363(1975). Holland v. 17 Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1046(1978), aff'd 622 F.2d 95 (4th 18 Cir. 1980). Bowling v. United States, 510 F.2d 112 (5th 19 Cir. 1975). 20 21 22 The closing agreement pursuant to section 7121 is the exclusive method to administratively settle a tax liability until a suit is docketed in the Tax Court or the 23 District Court. See Botany Worsted Mills v. United 24 States, 278 U.S. 282, 288 (1929). 25 While we are sympathetic to Petitioner's cribers 1973)406-2250|opetations@escriberwet|wwwese,1bermet frustration with the evolution of the forms that were submitted to her, her position is simply legally 6 untenable, and we are left with no recourse but to enter a decision for Respondent based upon the record before us. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 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 (973}406-2250|operations@escribersnet|www.escribersaet