TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Gordon A. & Pamela R. James
Docket Number: 28719-10SL
Judge: Whalen
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/22/2012
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 GORDON A. & PAMELA R. JAMES, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 28719-10S L ) ) ) ) ) R D E R 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 petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings in the above case before the undersigned at Seattle, Washington, containing oral findings of fact and opinion rendered on January 27, 2012. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) Laurence J. Whalen Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 22, 2012 68VEb FEB 2 3 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 BENCH OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE LAURENCE J. WHALEN GORDON A. & PAMELA R. JAMES V. COMMISSIONER 3 DOCKET NO.: 28719-10 SL JANUARY 27, 2012 I. 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. II. This proce ding is a levy action that was brought pursuant to ections 6330 (d) and 7463 (f) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. This proceeding was also brought pursuant to Rules 330 through 334, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. In this bench opinion all section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The decision to be enterèd in this case is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority. Sec. 7463 (b) . III. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 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 IV. 4 Neither pet itioner appeared when this case was called from the Ëalendar of the trial session of the Court that began in Seattle, Washington, on January 23, 2012. PÀtsy A. Clarke, attorney at law, appeared on behalf of respondent. V. This matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion For Summary Judgement, .filed November 21, 2011. The facts relevant to the proper :disposition of respondent's motion are as follows: On February 8, 2010, respondent mailed to petitioners a Final Ñotice-Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing in which respondent proposed to use levy to collect petitioners' income tax liability for taxable year 2008. Thereafter, on or about March 23, 2010, respondent received petitioners' Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing filed on IRS Form 12153. Petitioners' Form 12153 states that they disagreed with the levy because they wanted a collection alternative in the form of an offer-in- compromise to be used. The Form gives the following 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 5 as their reason: "My wife and I have been unemployed for several months and are unable to pay the tax amount at this time.'? The settle¼ent officer to whom petitioners' case was assigned sent a letter dated July 23, 2010, to petitioners in which she acknowledged receipt of their request for a åollection due process hearing, she scheduled a hearing for August 24, 2010, by telephone, and she a ked petitioners to submit a completed collection Information Statement on IRS Form 433-A, along with supporting financial documents, before August 10, 20 0. The letter told petitioners that the settlement officer could not consider collection alternatives without receiving the requested informatioù. Petitioners failed to provide the Collection Information Statement by August 10, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the scheduled time of the hearing, the settlement officer telephoned petitioners but only reached their voice mail. The settlement officer left a message in which she asked petitioners to return the call before 4:00 p.m. on the same day. Petitioners did not call the settlement officer on August 24, 2010. On the following day, the settlement officer sent a letter to petitioners 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 stating that they had missed the hearing, and further stating that if they|wanted her to consider any additional informatiön, then they must provide the information to her bëfore September 10, 2010. By letter dated September 9, 2010, petitioners told the settlement officer that they had never received her letter dated July 23, 2010, and they had not known about the hearing on August 24, 2010. The settlement officer telephoned petitioners on Octobèr 5, 2010, and lèft a message for petitioners asking them to call her. Later, on the same day, Mr. James elephoned the settlement officer and agreed to conduc the collection due process hearing by telephone He said that petitioners wanted a collection alternative. The settlement officer explained that petitioners would have to submit a completed Collection Information Statement before she could consider a collection alternative. She gave petitioners until October 19, 2010, to submit the Collection Information Statement and supporting documents, and she informed Mr. James that if the statement was not received at that time, then the notice of determination would be issued based upon the information in the administrative file. 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 On October 19, 2010, petitioners sent a letter to the settlement officer by facsimile transmission requestïng an additional week to provide the Collection Information Statement to her. On November 3, 2010, the settlement officer telephoned petitioners and left a voice mail message asking them to call her. On November 5, 2010, petitioners telephoned the settlèment officer and left a voice mail message stating that they would call back between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p;m. on the same day. They did not call back.: On November 19, 2010, the settlement officer issued the súbject notice of determination. The Petition Petitioners' petition states the following as the reason why they disagree with the IRS determination: "The Noticè of Determination was issued following å Collection Due Process Hearing (CDP) that I was not aware of. We only became aware of the CDP when we received a letter (dated August 25, 2010) telling us we'd missed the Hearing. We followed up with a fax describing not having seen the letter scheduling a CDP. On October 5, 2010 I called the name from the August 25th 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 letter and a CDP was conducted on the spot, without my having opportunity to prepare a viable alt rnative payment plan. "Had we be n adequately informed of the initial CD date and time, we would have prepared a d offered an alternative payment plan, instead of the Notice referring to us as not cooperating in the determination of an alternative to enforce collections." Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment Respondent's motion recites the above facts and emphasizes that petitioners had failed to provide the Completed Information Statement on Form 433-A, which was requested by the settlement officer. Respondent's motion otes that the validity of the underlying tax liability is not before the Court and, thus, the standard f r reviewing the action of the settlement officer is abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Goza v. Commissioner 114 T.C. 176 (2000). Based on that standard, respondent argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial and respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law because the settlement officer considered all of the matters required by section 6330(c), such as spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of 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 9 proposed collection action, and offers of collection alternatives. Petitioners did not file an objection or other response to respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. VI. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in controversy "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissiòns, and any other acceptable materials, together uith the affidavits, if any, show that there is no gen ine issue as to any material fact and that a decision ay be rendered as a matter of law." Rule 121(a) a d (b). Because thë underlying tax liability is not at issue, our review under section 6330 is for abuse of discretion. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). This standard does not ask us to decide whether ln our own opinion petitioners' offer-in- compromise should have been accepted. Rather, under this standard, the question is whether the action 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 10 respondent's settlemént officer sustaining the lien was arbitrary, capridious, or without ·sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999); Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166; Fowler v. ommissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163. VII. We do not believe that the action of respondent's settlement officer, approving the levy as an appropriate collection device, was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. Petitioners did not make a timely response to the settlement officer's ;request for information. Based upon the information|available to the settlement officer, the determiñation to sustain the levy was reasonable. Furthermore, we note the fact that petitioners failed to appear in this Court when their case was called for Èrial and for hearing on respondent's motion. Their failure to appear undercuts the claim in their petition that they wanted to cooperate with the settlement officer, but were thwarted from doing so when they did not receive the settlement officer's letter of July 23, 2010. VIII. For the foregoing reasons, we hereby sustain 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 , 11 the notice of determ nation dated November 19, 2010, that was issued to p titioners with respect to taxable year 2008. IX. This concludes the court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:22 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888