TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Samuel Tannenbaum
Docket Number: 21538-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/18/2008
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D.C. 2021 7 SAMUEL TANNENBAUM, Petitioner, v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 21538-07L 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 Hartford, Connecticut on June 4, 2008, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Diane L. Kroupa Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 18, 2008 SERVED JUN 18 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa June 4, 2008 2 Samuel Tannenbaum 21538-07 L 3 The Court has decided to render oral findings of 4 fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents 5 the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . These oral 6 findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon a s 7 precedent in any other case . 8 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 9 authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . All 10 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as 11 amended and in effect for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, th e 12 years at issue, and all rule references are to the Tax Court 13 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 14 This is a collection review case involving the 15 filing of a notice of federal tax lien to collec t 16 Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for each of the years a t 17 issue . This collection review matter is before the Court on 18 Respondent's motion for summary judgment filed on April 17, 19 2008 . 20 Samuel Tannenbaum did not appear, nor did an y 21 representative appear on his behalf . Frank Louis appeared 22 on behalf of Respondent . 23 Findings of Fact . The record establishes, or the 24 parties do not dispute, the following : Petitioner resided 25 in Connecticut at the time he filed the collection revie w Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 petition in this case . Petitioner filed a return for 2002 2 showing a $22,898 tax liability . Petitioner had not paid 3 any estimated taxes, nor any other taxes, before filing the 4 return for 2002 . Petitioner filed a retu rn for 2003 showing 5 a $47 , 399 tax liability . Petitioner had not paid an y 6 estimated taxes, nor any other taxes, before filing the 7 return for 2003 . Petitioner filed a return for 2004 showing 8 a $10,582 tax liability . Petitioner had not paid any 9 estimated taxes , nor any other taxes, before filing th e 10 return for 2004 . Petitioner filed a return for 2005'showing 11 a $2,714 tax liability . Petitioner had not paid an y 12 estimated taxes, nor any other taxes, before filing the 13 return for 2005 . 14 Respondent assessed the amount of unpaid taxes 15 reflected on the returns for each of the years at issue . 16 Petitioner failed to pay the assessed taxes, and Respondent 17 issued to Petitioner two IRS Letters 3172, entitled " Notice 18 of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing . " 19 (This notice shall be referred to as the "Lien Notice ." ) 20 The Lien Notice for years 2002 , 2003, and 2004 was 21 dated March 6, 2007 . The Lien Notice for year 2005 wa s 22 dated June 5, 2007 . 23 In response to both the Lien Notices , Petitioner 24 requested a hearing . In his hearing request, Petitioner 25 wanted to raise collection alternatives of an installment Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 agreement or an offer-in-compromise rather than the 2 appropriateness of the lien action . Petitioner als o 3 mentioned his poor health and sought to abate the penalties . 4 The settlement officer assigned to Petitioner' s 5 hearing informed Petitioner to provide financial information 6 and to provide proof of filing and payment obligations . The 7 letter also informed Petitioner that, if he failed t o 8 provide the necessary information, the settlement officer 9 would be unable to consider any collection alternatives . 10 Petitioner failed to provide any information and 11 failed to attend any scheduled hearings, again citing health 12 issues . Without any additional information from Petitioner, 13 the settlement officer sustained the proposed collectio n 14 action by lien in a. Notice of Determination Concernin g 15 Collection Action(s), under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated 16 August 31, 2007, regarding all of the years at issue . 17 Petitioner timely filed a petition to contest the proposed 18 lien action to collect Petitioner's unpaid tax liability for 19 each of the years at issue . Again, Petitioner respectfully 20 requested, in the petition, that he be given a hearing, that 21 all penalties be abated, and that he be permitted to seek an 22 installment agreement for payment of any arrears, or tha t 23 Respondent accept an offer-in-compromise . 24 As stated previously, Respondent filed a summary 25 judgment motion, and Petitioner filed an objection on May Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 15, 2008, by the required deadline . Petitioner states, in 2 his objection, that his poor health prevented him from 3 attending any of the scheduled hearings or providing any of 4 the required documents . He asked for further adjournment of 5 any collection activity because of his poor health . 6 Opinion . We are asked to decide whether to grant 7 summary judgment . Summary judgment is intended to expedite 8 litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials . See 9 e .g ., FPL Group, I nc . v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 7 4 10 (2001) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted if 11 the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, 12 admissions, and other acceptable materials, together with 13 the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue 14 as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered 15 as a matter of law . See Rule 121(b) ; Electric Arts, Inc . v . 16 Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 (2002) . The moving party 17 has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material 18 fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter 19 of law . See e .g ., Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 20 162 (2002) . The party opposing summary judgment must se t 21 forth specific facts that show that a genuine question of 22 material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations 23 or denials in the pleadings . Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd . 24 25 v . Commissioner , 91 T .C . 322, 325 (1988) ; Casanova Co . v . Commissioner , 87 T .C . 214, 217 (1986) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 Standard of Review . We begin with the standard of 2 review . Where the validity of the underlying tax liability 3 is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a 4 de novo basis . Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 61 0 5 (2000) . Where, as is the case here, the validity of the 6 underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, 7 the Court will review Respondent ' s determination for abuse 8 of discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , supra ; Goza v . 9 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 ( 2000) . We must decide 10 whether Respondent . exercised his discretion arbitrarily , 11 capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law . See 12 13 Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) ; Fargo v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004 - 13 . Based upon our 14 examination of the entire record before us, we find tha t 15 Respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that 16 the collection action should proceed with respect t o 17 Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for each of the years at 18 issue . 19 We now discuss general collection proceedings . 20 Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of the United States on 21 all property and rights to property of a taxpayer whe n 22 demand for payment of that person's liability for taxes has 23 been made , and the person fails to pay those taxes . Th e 24 lien arises when the assessment is made . Sec . 6322 . 25 Section 6320 provides that the secretary shall Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 furnish the taxpayer described in Section 6321 with written 2 notice that a lien was filed . The person may then reques t 3 an administrative review hearing to be conducted in a manner 4 consistent with the procedures set forth in Section s 5 6330(c), (d), and (e) . Sec . 6320(c) . If the taxpaye r 6 requests a hearing, he or she may raise at that hearing any 7 relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax . Sec . 8 6330(c)(2) . Relevant issues include any appropriate spousal 9 defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection, 10 and possible alternative means of collection, such as a n 11 installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise . Sec . 12 6330(c)(2)(A) . After the hearing, the settlement officer is 13 required to make a determination that addresses issues the 14 taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements o f 15 applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, 16 and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes 17 with the legitimate concern of the person that an y 18 collection action be no more intrusive than necessary . Sec . 19 6330 (c) (3) (C) . 20 The record reflects that the settlement officer 21 properly verified that all of the legal and procedura l 22 requirements have been met . The settlement office r 23 confirmed, using a transcript of Petitioner's accounts, that 24 assessments were properly made for each of the years a t 25 issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sent Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 regarding the assessments , and that Petitioner was properly 2 informed of his rights with respect to the lien action . 3 The record also reflects that Petitioner does not 4 dispute, in the petition, that the settlement office r 5 committed an abuse of discretion . Any issue not raised in 6 the petition is deemed conceded by Petitioner . In addition, 7 Petitioner requested, but never presented, any collectio n 8 alternative to Respondent or presented any financia l 9 information for Respondent to evaluate any alternatives . We 10 have frequently and consistently held that an officer does 11 not abuse any dis :retion by refusing to consider collection 12 alternatives if the taxpayer fails to submit the require d 13 and requested financial information . It is not an abuse of 14 discretion for personnel to refuse to consider collection 15 alternatives where a taxpayer fails to submit requeste d 16 financial information . Sapp v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 17 2006-104 ; Pricchiottino v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004- 18 231 ; Newstat v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-208 . 19 The settlement officer also addressed the issues 20 Petitioner raised in his hearing request to abate the 21 penalties and to request Respondent to allow him a n 22 installment agreement or accept an offer-in-compromise from 23 Petitioner . The settlement officer explained tha t 24 Petitioner needed to provide the necessary financial 25 information and needed to be current on his filing and Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 10 1 payment requirements . Finally, the record reflects that the 2 settlement officer'properly balanced the need for efficient 3 collection of taxes with Petitioner ' s legitimate concern 4 that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary . 5 Petitioner has not asserted any spousal defenses 6 or otherwise offered any additional collection alternatives . 7 See Sec . 6330 ( c)(2) . Accordingly , these issues are no w 8 deemed conceded . Rule 331(b)(4) . 9 While we are sympathetic to Petitioner ' s health 10 issues , Petitioner has not presented any evidence o r 11 persuasive arguments to convince us that Respondent abused 12 his discretion . We find Petitioner's actions unacceptable . 13 He did not attend any scheduled hearing, he did not provide 14 th e necessary financial information , he did not demonstrate 15 compliance with estimated tax payments, nor did he supply 16 some form of security other than the lien . Whil e 17 Petitioner's health may have prevented any of these actions, 18 Petitioner had a fellow attorney , Edward Berman , sign a Form 19 2848, entitled " Power of Attorney ," that authorized Mr . 20 Berman to represent Petitioner before Respondent . We, 21 therefore , conclude that Respondent did not abuse hi s 22 discretion in upholding Respondent ' s lien actions to collect 23 from Petitioner outstanding tax liabilities for each of the 24 years at issue . 25 To reflect the foregoing , decision will be entered Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 11 1 for Respondent , and an appropriate order will be issued 2 sustaining the determinations set forth in the Notice o f 3 Determination Concerning Collection Action ( s) under Section 4 6320 and/or 6330, dated August 31, 2007, upon which thi s 5 case is based , regarding the unpaid liabilities for each of 6 the taxable years at issue . The order will also gran t 7 Respondent ' s motion for summary judgment . 8 This concludes the Court ' s oral findings of fact 9 and opinion in this case . 10 (Whereupon , at 10 :04 a . m ., the bench opinion in 11 the above- entitled matter was concluded . ) 12 13 // 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 / / 21 // 22 // 2 3 24 // 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888