TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Edward M. Nelson, II
Docket Number: 17801-11SL
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/18/2013
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 EDWARD M. NELSON, II, ) Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) Docket No. 17801-11S L ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on June 20, 2013, 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 Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order and Decision will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. July 18, 2013 SERVED JUL 1 9 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 2 Carluzzo 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 20, 2013 Edward M. Nelson, II v. Commissioner Docket No. 17801-11SL 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 (bench opinion). Unless otherwise indicated, section references contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6330(d) proceeding is subject to the Small Tax Case provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority, and pursuant to section 7463(b) the decision entered in this shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. This case is before the Court on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 February 27, 2013. A hearing was conducted on respondent's motion on June 17, 2013, in Oklahoma 3 City, Oklahoma. G. Chad Barton appeared on behalf of 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 respondent and argued in support of the motion. Edward M. Nelson appeared on his own behalf and opposed it; he lived in Oklahoma at the time the petition in this case was filed. Giving due regard to: (1) the representations made in respondent's motion; (2) petitione.r's.objection to respondent's motion; and (3) the arguments presented by the parties at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case, and for the following reasons, that respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law. 16 Consequently, disposition of the case upon 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 respondent's motion is appropriate. See Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992) affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The undisputed facts relevant to the resolution of respondent's motion are easily summarized. In a Notice of Determination Concerning 24 Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, 25 dated June 24, 2011 (notice), respondent determined 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 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 that a Notice of Federal Tax lien, filed May 11, 2010 (NFTL), is an appropriate collection action with respect to petitioner's outstanding employment tax liability for the second quarter of 2006 (underlying liability). Page three of the notice incorrectly refers to the underlying liability as an "unpaid personal income tax liability." Elsewhere in the administrative record presented in support of respondent's motion, petitioner is referred to as a "corporation." The parties have proceeded as though these errors are nothing more than drafting errors, and following their lead, we do likewise. The NFTL is not the first collection action respondent has employed in an attempt to collect the underlying liability. By letter dated February 13, 2010, petitioner was advised of respondent's intent to levy with respect to that liability. That letter also advised petitioner of his right to challenge that proposed collection action by requesting an administrative hearing. See section 6330(b). He did not, however, do so. Although petitioner did not respond to the February 13, 2010, letter, he did respond to the May 11, 2010, letter advising him that the NFTL had been filed, and his right to request an administrative 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 hearing in order to challenge that collection action, which he did. In his request for the administrative hearing that preceded the notice, petitioner did not seek a collection alternative to the NFTL. Instead, he noted that he was "not liable for all or part of" the underlying liability. His sentiment in that regard is repeated in the petition. Pointing out the total wages paid to his employee(s) during 2006, petitioner claims in the petition, as he argued at the hearing, that he "could not have owed that much in payroll taxes." Maybe not, but the extent of his employment tax liability for the period here in dispute cannot be determined in this proceeding. That being so, the amount of the underlying liability, although obviously disputed, is not a 16 material fact. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Petitioner's position at the administrative hearing, and his position in this proceeding, constitutes a challenge to the existence or the amount of the underlying liability. Because petitioner had a prior opportunity to raise such a challenge in response to the proposed levy action, he may not do so here. See section 6330 (c) (2) (B); Lewis v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 48 (2007); section 301.6330-1(e) (3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. He 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 is free, of course, to pursue any such challenge through traditional refund procedures, see section 7422, or less formally through a request for audit reconsideration. Otherwise, and in all other respects, respondent has shown that he has satisfied the procedural requirements imposed upon him by sections 6320 and 6330, and petitioner does not suggest otherwise. It follows that respondent's motion is well made and will be granted. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order and decision will be entered allowing respondent to proceed with collection as determined in the notice. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:30 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 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com