TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mahliek A. Barnes
Docket Number: 6192-11L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/19/2012
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MAHLIEK A. BARNES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF .INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 6192-11 L ) ) ) ) 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 of the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa at Seattle, Washington on March 1, 2012, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 19, 2012 RVED MAR 20 2012 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 Judge Kroupa March 1, 2012 Barnes v. Commissioner Docket No. 6192-11L 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 in this collection review proceeding is made pursuant to the authority granted by § 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the years at issue as later defined, and all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case involving the filing of a notice of federal tax lien to collect from Petitioner his tax liabilities for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 (collectively the years at issue). Petitioner appeared pro se, and Bob Boeshaar appeared on behalf of Respondent Findings of Fact. Certain facts are stipulated. The stipulation of facts, with accompanying exhibits, is incorporated by this reference. The facts are so found. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 4 Petitioner resided in Washington at the time he filed the collection review petition. Petitioner failed to file a federal income tax return.for any of the years at issue. Respondent therefore prepared substitutes for returns for th 'se b years. These years were the subject of an earlier Tax Court proceeding at Docket No. 5640-08. The Court entered a decision in that proceeding, and Respondent assessed the amount due for each of the years at issue. Petitioner failed to pay the.assessed liabilities, so Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing under I.R.C. § 6320. The lien notice advised Petitioner that a notice of federal tax lien had been filed with respect to Petitioner's unpaid taxes for the years at issue and informed Petitioner that he could receive a CDP hearing. Petitioner timely filed a request for a hearing with Appeals in response to the lien notice. Petitioner stated in this CDP hearing request that he wanted the IRS to stop bothering him and levying against his wages. He also asked that.the IRS withdraw the liens as that was causing him great pain and suffering. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 He indicated he wanted the lien released or withdrawn, but he failed to provide any information or documentation to support his request. He simply said that he wanted the lien withdrawn as he was looking for a new job and the lien would hamper his ability to find a new job. He also at some point provided a Form 656 entitled Offer In Compromise (OIC). Respondent rejected the OIC as he determined that Petitioner could full pay the balance due with future earnings. Petitioner provided returns for tax years 2003, 2004 and 2005. Respondent accepted the returns as filed and reduced the outstanding amount due. Petitioner did not want to establish an installment agreement because he felt the assessments for 2002 and 2006 were incorrect. He believes that he owe's no tax for 2002 or 2006. His taxes due for 2006 were attributable to his foreclosure. He asked that the CDP case be closed so he could petition the Tax Court while he submits an exam reconsideration regarding 2002 and 2006. Without any additional information from Petitioner, Respondent issued the determination notice upholding Respondent's proposed collection action with respect to Petitioner's income tax liabilities for the years at issue. Respondent determined that Petitioner Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 had failed to supply documentation to show that he was entitled to any collection alternatives or how the lien filing was more intrusive than a levy. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court. Petitioner seeks in the petition to contest the underlying liabilities for the assessed amounts. He asserts that he owes no taxes and that the lien should be withdrawn. Again, he provides no documentation or justification for the lien to be withdrawn. Opinion. We are asked whether to sustain Respondent's collection action set forth in the determination notice. Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review Respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). We must decide whether Respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that Respondent did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the lien filing to collect Petitioner's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 7 unpaid income tax liabilities for the years at issue. We briefly provide an overview of collection proceedings. If any person liable for federal tax liability neglects or refuses to make payment, a lien in favor of the United States is imposed on all property and rights to property of that taxpayer. See § 6321. The lien arises when the assessment is made and continued until the tax liability is satisfied or the statute of limitations bars enforcement of the lien. Sec. 6322. If taxpayer fails to pay, the Commissioner files a lien with the appropriate state office to validate the lien against any purchaser, holder of a security interest or judgment lien creditor. Sec. 6323(a); Lindsay v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2001-285. The Commissioner is required to furnish the taxpayer with written notice that a lien was filed. Sec. 6320. The person may then request administrative review of the matter in the form of an Appeals Office hearing similar to collection by levy. Sec. 6320(c). If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or she may raise at that hearing any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy. Sec. 6330 (c) (2). Relevant issues include any appropriate spousal defenses,. challenges to the appropriateness of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 8 the collection and possible alternative means of collection, such as an installment agreement or an offer in compromise. Sec. 6330(c) (2) (A). After the hearing, the appeals officer is required to make a determination that addresses issues the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable law and administrative procedures have been met and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c) (3). The record reflects that the settlement officer properly verified that all the legal and procedural requirements have been met. The settlement officer confirmed, using a transcript of Petitioner's accounts, that assessments were properly made for each year at issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sent regarding the assessments and that Petitioner was properly informed of his rights with respect to the lien filing. The record also reflects that the settlement officer properly balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with Petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary. The record also establishes that the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 settlement officer addressed the only issue Petitioner raised -- that the lien be withdrawn. She considered the statutory requirements for lien withdrawal under § 6323(j) and determined that none of the conditions applied to release the lien. Petitioner cannot merely deny his liability and ask for the lien to be withdrawn. The settlement officer concluded that Petitioner had not entered into an agreement to pay the tax liability. Instead, she determined that the lien was filed in full compliance with the law. . Petitioner has not raised any valid challenges to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousal defenses or otherwise offer any collection alternative. See § 6330(c) (2). Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b) (4). Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that Respondent abused his discretion. Indeed, Respondent is acting well within his discretion, particularly in light of Petitioner's failure to provide requested information and his failure to file returns for so many years. Returns for several of the years were provided well after the due date and in fact after a decision was entered by the Court. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 10 The Court also frowns upon Petitioner's refusal to participate in the CDP hearing. Issues that were not raised to Appeal.s cannot later be raised to the court. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107 (2007). We therefore conclude that Respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding Respondent's collection action. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for Respondent and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determination set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under § 6320 and/or 6330 dated February 22, 2011, upon which this case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilities for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:12 a.m. the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888