TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Anthony J. Granata
Docket Number: 5625-10L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/01/2011
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CLC ANTHONY J. GRANATA, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 5625-10 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. O 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of February 11, 2011, containing her oral opinion rendered in this case. the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa on transmit the to the pages of findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 1, 2011 SERVEDMar022011 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 Diane L. Kroupa February 11, 2011 Granata v. Commissioner Docket No. 5625-10L 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 is made pursuant to the authority granted in section 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 collectio review case involving the filing of a notice of Fed ral tax lien and a notice of intent to levy rela ing to the tax liabilities from 2000, 2001, 002 and 2003 (collectively the years at issue). This collection review matter is before the C urt on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 23, 2010. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the petitioner. Frank Louis appeared on behalf of respondent. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not 4 dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in Connecticut at the time the petition was filed. Petitioner failed t file timely a Federal income tax return for each of the years at issue. Respondent prepared substitute for returns for petitioner and assessed propo ed tax liabilities for petitioner. Petitioner failed to pay the assessments. Respondent then sent petitioner a Final Notice-Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your right to a Hearing. The levy notice advised petitioner that respondent intended to levy to collect the unpaid taxes for the years at issue nd informed petitioner that he could receive a hearing. Respondent also sent petitioner a Notice of Federa Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing under I.R.C. Section symbel 6320. The lien notice advised petitioner that a notice of Federal tax lien had been filed with respect to petitioner's unpaid taxes or the years at issue and informed petitioner that ould receive a hearing. Petitioner timely f led a request for a hearing with Appeals in response to both the levy notice and the lien notice. As set forth in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 -4888 1 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 Determination Notice, petitioner failed to participate in a scheduled face-to-face ccnference, but instead called and asked that the conference be postponed. He also failed to provide any of the information that Appeals requested including financial information and the filing of delinquent returns. Without any information from petitioner despite multiple requests, respondent issued the Determination Notice upholding respondent's proposed collection action with respect to petitioner' s income tax lia bilities for the years at issue. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court . Petitioner does not challenge the existing assessments or tax liabilities in the petition. Rather, petitioner asserts that he needs more time to come up with collection alternatives and to attempt to come up with a settlement proposal. As mentioned previo) sly, respondent filed a summary judgment motion. The Court ordered petitioner to file on or before January 31, 2011, a response or an objection to respondent's summary judgment motion. Petitioner failed to file a r sponse or and objection. The Court also scheduled the motion for a hearing in Hartford, Connecticut on February 7, 2011. Petitioner failed to attend. Petitioner called on the morning of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 -4888 1 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 the hearing to inform the Court that he had the flu 6 and would not be attending. OPINIO% We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g., IFPL Group, Inc. V. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable materials shdw there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b); Electric Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). The moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 162 (2002). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts that sho that a genuine question of material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations or denials in the pleadings. Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 216-217(1986k. Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent'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 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 determining that the collection action should procded with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for the years at issue. Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We briefly provide En overview of collection proceedings. If any person liable for Federal tax liability neglects or refuses to make payment within ten days of notice and demand, the Commissioner is authorized to collect the tax by levy on that person's property. See sec. 6331(a). At least 30 days before enforcing collection by levy on the person's property, the Secretary is obliged to p::ovide the person with a final notice of intent to levy, including notice of the administrative appeals av<ilable to the person. See sec. 6330(d). The person in entitled, upon request, to an 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 administrative review hearing before Appeals. Sec. 6330(b) (1). 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 collection, and possible alternative means of collection such as an installment agreement or an of fer-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 proced res have been met, and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate con«ern 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 tr nscript of petitioner's accounts, that assessments were properly made for each year at issue, that appropria :e and timely notices were sent regarding the assessments, and that petitioner was properly informed of his rights with 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 respect to the proposed levy action and 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 intrusi e than necessary. Petitioner has not aised any challenges to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousal defenses, or otherwise offer any collection alternatives. See sec. 6330( ) (2). Accordingly, these issues are now deemed cdnceded. Rule 331(b) (4.) Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convi ce us that respondent abused his discretion. Indeed, respondent is acting well within his discretion to deny petitioner's request for additional time, particularly in light of petitioner's failure to provide requested information and to appear for his collection due process hearing. Petitioner also failed to respond to the Court's orders and failed to comply with the Court's procedures. We therefore conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in u holding respondent's proposed collection action regarding petitioner's outstanding tax liabilities for each of the four year at issue. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 4888 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 10 entered for respondent and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the dete minations set forth in the Notice of Determination C ncerning Collection Action(s) Under Sections 6320 and/or 6330, dated February s, 2010, upon which his case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilit es for each year at issue. The order will also grant respondent's motion for summary judgment . THIS CONCLUDES THE O'OURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . (Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 4888