TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Javier Hernandez
Docket Number: 22737-18L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/22/2020
Pages: 8

CT UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JAVIER HERNANDEZ, Petitioner(s), v. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 22737-1 8 L. 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 hearing 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, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 30, 2019, and supplemented on January 9, 2020, will be granted and a decision 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 Javier Hernandez v. Commissioner Docket No. 22737-18L 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 Rule references here and after are to the Tax Court Rules. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 This opinion is also authorized by section 7459(b) of the 14 Internal Revenue Code, and section references here and 15 after are to the Internal Revenue Code. 16 17 18 sefore us is Respondent's Motion for summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 121. We have jurisdiction in this case under section 6330(d), as this is a case where 19 Respondent seeks to collect income tax liabilities for 20 21 22 2016 pursuant to a levy, and Petitioner has timely sought review of this collection action after a hearing was conducted by Respondent's Appeals Office with the 23 Petitioner, and a determination was made that the 24 collection activity should be sustained. 25 The underlying income tax liability for 2016 is à C(ibers (97334002250loperations@esenbersmet|www.escribersaet 1 2 not in dispute, as Petitioner has chosen not to contest that liability. A hearing was held on Respondent's 3 motion, and Petitioner, based upon his assertions at the 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 hearing, was allowed to supplement the record of the hearing. Respondent filed with the Motion for Summary Judgment a declaration of the Settlement officer who reviewed Petitioner's case, together with the record of the hearing provided to the Petitioner. In accord with the Court's allowance to the 10 Petitioner to file supplemental documents, the Court 11 allowed Respondent to file a supplemental motion 12 memorandum, which was received after the hearing as well. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The facts supporting the motion are not contested. The Petitioner had an outstanding income tax liability for 2016, based upon the Income Tax Return he filed for that year, which failed to fully pay the liability shown. Additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) and section 6654 and interest have been assessed on the unpaid amount of that tax liability. 20 Petitioner does not contest that he is liable for this 21 additional tax, nor the additions to tax. The tax return 22 that Petitioner filed showed a tax liability of $3,598. 23 This liability was reflected on the return filed on 24 October 13, 2017. On that return, the Petitioner also 25 reflected a withholding credit in the amount of $1,269. cribers (973}406-2250|operation5@escribersmet|www.escribersmet 5 This left a liability that was owed and not paid with the return. Respondent assessed the liability reflected on the return together with the additions to tax and interest on November 20, 2017. Petitioner received a notice with a balance due on November 20, 2017. He failed to make any additional payments on his 2016 tax liability, which remains due. On February 28, 2018 the Internal Revenue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Service mailed to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy 11 12 and Notice of the Right to a Hearing relative to the 2016 tax liability. Petitioner timely requested a hearing on 13 March 30, 2018. He checked the box that reflected that he 14 could not pay the liability in his submission requesting a 15 hearing. After various attempts to reach the Petitioner 16 17 18 19 the r the Settlement officer was assigned to Petitioner's case on August 1, 2018. On August 13, 2018 the Settlement officer confirmed that he had no prior involvement with the 20 Petitioner. On August 17, 2018 the Settlement officer 21 mailed to the Petitioner a contact letter scheduling a 22 23 telephonic hearing on September 7, 2018. He requested financial information from the Petitioner to support 24 Petitioner's position that he could not pay the tax 25 liability. He did not receive this information prior to cribers $73)406-2250|operationseescribetsmet|wwwescribers.net 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 the telephonic hearing date. The hearing was held over the telephone on SePtember 7, 2018. At the beginning of the hearing the Settlement officer informed the Petitioner of the role he had in reviewing Petitioner's case and that based upon his review the Internal Revenue Service had met all administrative and legal requirements in proposing the levy to collect the tax liability. Petitioner indicated that he accepted those determinations and had no questions 10 or concerns regarding those items. 11 He also stated that he did not dispute the 12 underlying liability, but he was unable to pay the 13 14 15 16 17 18 liability. The Settlement officer had obtained a Form 433-A prepared by the Petitioner, and previously submitted to the IRS. He explained to the Petitioner that this form showed available monthly income to have a partial pay agreement with the Petitioner, such that Petitioner could begin paying his tax liability. The Settlement officer 19 also explained that the expenses reflected on this form 20 needed to be substantiated with additional information, 21 SPecifically lines 40 through 48 of the form. 22 At the end of the hearing the Settlement officer 23 provided the Petitioner the opportunity to submit an 24 updated Form 433-A until September 21, 2018. The 25 Settlement officer never received this form. There were cdbers $733406-2250|operations escribermet|www.escribermet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 no other issues raised at the hearing. On September 10, 2018 Fresno Appeals received a letter dated September 6, 2018 from the Petitioner. This, again, provided the form previously submitted on March 29, 2018 which reflected monthly net income of $846. On September 13, 2018 the Settlement officer mailed to the Petitioner a last chance letter. He continued to hold the case open to allow Petitioner to provide the requested information until he prepared the case for closing on 10 October 5, 2018. A Notice of Determination was issued on 11 October 17, 2018. 12 13 14 At the hearing Petitioner maintained that he had sent information after the September 6 letter, but he admitted he had sent it to the wrong address. The Court 15 permitted him to submit that information after the 16 hearing, which he did. That information reflects a 17 18 revised Form 433-A, which Petitioner apparently did sen to the wrong address ès the Internal Revenue Service after 19 the hearing. However, Petitioner did not submit with this 20 21 22 23 24 form the support information for the additional expenses he claimed on the form, nor for the original expenses claimed on the form that were consistent with the 2018 Form 433-A. Among the information Petitioner submitted after 25 the hearing was an updated form which is based upon cribers (9733406.2250|operationseescribersnet|www.escribetsnet 8 current information. There was no support information submitted together with that form, as well. Petitioner did provide information to support the fact that he continued to pay spousal support to his ex-wife, but there is various other information for which he claimed eXPenses, which was not supported for any of the forms submitted. Our determination is based upon review of whether there was an abuse of discretion by the Settlement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 officer, and whether there are any unproven facts or 11 12 contested facts which would require a trial, and could not be determined in a summary manner. Based upon the record 13 before us and the information submitted after the hearing, 14 15 it is clear that there is no dispute as to the critical facts, and that the Settlement officer did not abuse 16 discretion because Petitioner failed to provide to him a 17 revised form. And even if the form that was mailed to the 18 wrong*Bress had been received by the Settlement officer, 1g 19 it is apparent that the underlying support sought by the 20 Settlement officer was not provided. 21 22 We find no basis to find any abuse of discretion by the Settlement officer, and we sustain the collection 23 action via levy as determined by the Internal Revenue 24 Service. 25 A decision will be entered for Respondent. } cribers (973)406-2250|operationseesc,ibetsmet|wwwescribersaet This concludes the Court's oral findings of 9 fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:56 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 cribers $7334002250|operationseescribers.netlwww.escribenmet