TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Zia Beheshti
Docket Number: 7969-18L
Judge: Kerrigan
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/22/2019
Pages: 8

SYM UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ZIA BEHESHTI, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 7969-18 L. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of trial in the above case before Judge Kathleen Kerrigan at San Francisco, California, on June 17, 2019, containing her Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Kathleen Kerrigan Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. July 22, 2019 SERVED Jul 23 2019 , 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by Judge Kathleen Kerrigan June 18, 2019 Zia Beheshti v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 7969-18L THE COURT: The Court has decided to rer.der in this case the following as its oral findings of fact and opinion, which shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 10 Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of 11 Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise índicated, all 12 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in 13 effect at all relevant times, and all Rute references are 14 15 to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. By a Notice of Determination Concerning 16 Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330 17 18 19 20 21 (notice of determination) dated March 26, 2018, respondent determined to proceed with a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) to collect petitioner's unpaid tax liability for - 2015. Trial of this case was conducted on June 17, 2019, in San Francisco, California. Petitioner represented 22 himself. Joseph E. Conley represented respondent. The 23 parties' stipulation of facts and attached exhibits were 24 25 admitted into evidence. We find the following facts: FINDINGS OF FACT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Petitioner resided in California when he timely filed his petition. After requesting an extension of time to file a joint return for 2015, petitioner and his spouse filed their joint return on October 15, 2016. The return showed an amount owed of $52,158. Petitioner worked at FireEye, Inc., and sold his stock options. The proceeds were reported on his Form W- 2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2015. With the profit from the sale of the stock options, he purchased call opticns for stock in another company. The call options expired and became worthless. On April 25, 2017, respondent sent to petitioner and his spouse a Letter 3172, Notice of Federal Tax Lien 14 Filing and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. On May 25, 15 2017, petitioner and his spouse mailed a joint Form 12153, 16 Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (joint CDP 17 18 19 20 21 request). Petitioner's spouse also submitted a separate Form 12153 bearing only her signature and requesting innocent spouse relief. Petitioner attached an "explanation of circumstances" to the joint CDP request and this 22 explanation was signed only by him. In his explanation he 23 raised the underlying liability and contended that the IRS 24 was getting paid twice and he should be able to write off 25 the amount he owed against his losses. . 19hy40642sólpperati nseescribersnetlwwwascribennet . 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . The joint CDP request was assigned to a settlement officer, and she sent petitioner and his spouse a letter scheduling a telephone conference for February 1, 2018. The letter also requested that petitioner and his spouse provide information to her by February 23, 2018. Petitioner and his spouse did not call for the conference or send the requested information. The settlenent officer spoke to petitioner's spouse at a later date and she indicated that the settlement officer should proceed with 10 the notice of determination. The record is not clear on 11 whether petitioner's spouse understood that the call was 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 not about her innocent spouse case. Petitioner raised this issue in his petition. OPINION The Federal Government obtains a Federal tax lien against the property and rights to proper:y of a taxpayer with an outstanding tax liability whenever a demand for payment has been made and the taxpayer neglects 19 or refuses to pay. Sec. 6321. Section 6320(av (1) 20 requires the Secretary to provide a taxpayer with written 21 notice when the Secretary has filed a NFTL against the 22 23 taxpayer's property or property rights. See also sec. 6321. The notice must also inform the taxpayer of his or 24 her right to a CDP hearing. Sec. 632C(a) (3), (b). 25 If the taxpayer requests a CDP hearing, the 1973H06-2250|óperations@escribers.net|www.escêers 6 hearing is conducted by the Appeals Office. Sec. 6330(b)(1). At the hearing, the taxpayer may raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or NFTL. Secs. 6320(b)(4), 6330(c)(2). Once the settlement officer makes a determination, the taxpayer may appeal the determination to this Court. Sec. 6330(d)(1). The Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's administrative determinations. Id. Under certain circumstances a zaxpayer may raise challenges to the Commissioner's determination of his or her underlying tax liabilities in a CDP proceeding. See sec. 6330(c)(2) (B). A taxpayer may challenge the amount 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 of the assessed tax in a CDP proceeding if he or she did 14 15 16 17 18 not receive a statutory notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute the tax liability. See Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 7 (2004). Where the validity of the taxpayer's tax liability is properly at issue, we review the 19 determination de novo. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 20 176, 181-182 (2000). Respondent did not contend that the 21 Court was precluded from addressing the underlying 22 23 liability. See Giamelli v Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 115 (2007) (holding that the Court does not have jurisdiction 24 to consider section 6330(c)(2) issues that were not raised 25 before the Appeals Office). 73)4D6-2250|operations@esùibernst wescribers-net 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Petitioner contends that he is not liable for the gain on the sale of his stock options because he should be able to write it off against his losses. He also contends that his gain from the sale of his stock options is being taxed twice: first when he paid the tax and second, when the person he bought the call options from pays tax on the gain. Petitioner cites no law that supports his argument. Tax being paid on another separate transaction does not impact the tax petitioner and his spouse owes. We conclude that petitioner is liable for the tax. We review the Commissioner's administrative 13 determinations for abuse of discretion. Sego v. 14 Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. 15 Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 182. A settlement officer has 16 abused his or her discretion if the determination is 17 arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or 18 law. See Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301,320 (2005), 19 aff'd, 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir..2006). 20 Section 6330(c)(3) requires the settlement 21 officer to consider the following during a CDP hearing: 22 (1)whether the requirements of any applicable law or 23 administrative procedure have been met; (2) any issues 24 appropriately raised by the taxpayer; and (3) whether the 25 Proposed collection action balances the need for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. See also Lunsford v. Commissicner, 117 T.C. 1E3, 184 (2001). We note that the settlement officer properly based her determination on the factors specified by section 6330(c)(3). Petitioner in his petition raised the issue that there was confusion regarding the joint CDP request and his wife's case. We conclude that it was not an abuse of 10 discretion for the settlement officer to issue the notice 11 of determinaticn because petitioner's argument regarding 12 his liability was groundless. 13 This concludes the Court's oral Findings of Fact 14 and Opinion in this case. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 731406-2250|operationscescribers.net|www.esalbersóet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER AND PROOFREADER CASE NAME: Zia Beheshti v. Commissioner DOCKET NO.: 7969-18L We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 9 inclusive, are the true, accurate and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Deborah Gonzalez on June 18, 2019 before the United States Tax Court at its session in San Francisco, CA, in accordance 10 with the applicable provlslons of the current verbatim 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 reporting contract of the Court and have verified the accuracy of the transcript by comparir_g the typewritten transcript against the verbal recording. . . Meribeth Ashley, CET-507 Transcriber 6/24/19 Date Stacey Post Proofreader 6/25/19 Date 73)406-2250 operations©estfibersnet|wwwätrbetsmet.