TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Joseph C. Horner
Docket Number: 8681-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/16/2010
Pages: 8

C , A, U. - A~e~ J r t UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 JOSEPH C . HORNER , Petitioner, v . Docket No . 8681-09 S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Cour E Rules of Practice an d 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 proceedings in the above case-before Judge Laurence J . Whalen at Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , containing his oral findings of fact and opinion , rendered on February 9, 2010 . In accordance with the oral,findifigs of fact .and opinion, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgme4t will be granted, and a decision will be entered for 'resionden . (Signed) Laurence J . Whalen Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . March 16, 2010 S~.RV D MAR 18 2010 2 1 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge Laurence J . Whalen 2 February 9, 201 0 3 Horner v . Commissioner Docket No . 8681-09 S 4 I . 5 The Court has decided to render ora l 6 findings of fact and opinion in this case and th e 7 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact 8 and opinion . 9 II . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 11 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal 12 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 13 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . . 14 Hereinafter, all section references are to th e 15 Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect fo r 16 the taxable year in issue, and all rule references are 17 to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 III . 19 This case was heard pursuant to Section 20 7463(f)(2) and is governed by Rules 170 through 175 . 21 Accordingly, this opinion should not be cited as 22 authority and the decision to be entered in this case 23 is not reviewable by any other Court . Sectio n 24 7463(b) . 25 IV . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 Mr . Joseph C . Horne' appeared in thes e 2 proceedings on his own behalf, and Ms . Kathleen K . 3 Raup, attorney at law, appeared on behalf o f 4 Respondent . 5 V . 6 The Petition . The j nstant petition, file d 7 pursuant to Sections 6330(d) and 7463(f)(2), asks th e 8 Court to review the notice of determination concerning 9 collection actions under Sect i ons 6320 and/or 633 0 10 issued to Petitioner on March 12, 2009 (hereinafter 11 notice of determination) . In that notice, a 12 settlement officer employed b' Respondent's office o f 13 appeals determined that Respondent may proceed wit h 14 levy to collect Petitioner ' s unpaid income tax 15 liability for taxable years 2005 and 2006 . . The 16 petition takes issue with the notice of determination 17 only insofar as it involves t xable year 2005 . 18 Therefore, only Petitioner's Taxable year 2005 is 19 before the Court in this case ., 20 VI . 21 Factual background . By letter dated 22 April 30, 2007, Respondent p r posed to increas e 23 Petitioner's income tax for taxable year 2005 in th e 24 amount of $3,842 based upon r ports that Petitione r 25 had omitted dividends of $62 and the proceeds of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628!,4888 1 certain stock sales of $26,54 . Thereafter , 2 Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to Petitioner 3 by certified mail on July 30, 2007 in which Respondent 4 determined a deficiency of $3,842 in Petitioner's tax 5 for 2005 . Petitioner receive the notice o f 6 deficiency on August 8, 2007 . 7 On August 15, 2008, Respondent issued t o 8 Petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice 9 of your right to a hearing in which Responden t 10 proposed to collect the unpaid balance of Petitioner' s 11 2005 tax . In response theret on or about 12 September 15, 2008, Petitioner submitted his request 13 for a collection due process or equivalent hearing on 14 IRS Form 12153 . Petitioner stated the following as 15 the reason for his disagreement with the notice o f 16 determination : "I am not liable for all or part of 17 the tax shown on the account iummary for 12-31-05 and 18 12-31-06 because : 1) I paid tax owed ; and 2) IRS is 19 mistaken in calculation of capital gains . " 20 By letter dated February 12, 2009, the 21 settlement officer scheduled telephone conferenc e 22 with Petitioner for March 4, 009 . She also advised 23 Petitioner that he was not eligible to dispute th e 24 amount of his tax liability f r 2005 because he had 25 had a prior opportunity to dispute his tax liability Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628!14888 1 for that year .when he received the notice o f 2 deficiency described above . The settlement officer 3 also advised Petitioner that he must provide a 4 completed collection information statement on IRS Form 5 433-A in order for the settlement officer "to consider 6 alternative collection methods, such as . an installment 7 agreement or offer in compromise" . 8 During the telephone conference on March 4, 9 2009, Petitioner did not raise any issue other than 10 his contention that he did no~ owe the underlying tax 11 liability . Furthermore, he did not submit a completed 12 collection information statement on IRS Form 433-A or 13 advance any collection alternative . Accordingly, on 14 March 12, 2009, the settlement officer issued th e 15 subject notice of determination which sets forth the 16 following summary of determination : "We could no t 17 reach an agreement, extend a n relief to you or, eve n 18 consider any alternatives to the proposed levy becaus e 19 you did not offer any collec t on alternative during 20 the collection due process (CDP) hearing process . " 21 The proposed levy action is the appropriate action in 22 this case . 2 3 24 VII . The case is before the Court to decide 25 Respondent's motion for summa y judgment . In tha t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 motion, Respondent asks the Court to summarily decide 2 the case in Respondent's favor on the ground that no 3 abuse of discretion can be found in the appea l 4 officer's issuance of the subject notice o f 5 determination and Respondent is entitled to judgment 6 as a matter of law . 7 VIII . 8 Petitioner's position . At the hearing on 9 Respondent's motion for summary judgment, Petitione r 10 again sought to question his ~ax liability for taxable 11 year 2005 . He acknowledged that was the only issu e 12 that he wanted to raise . 13 IX . 14 Discussion . The purpose of summary judgment 15 is to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and 16 expensive trials . See , e .g .,' Keene v . Commissioner , 17 121 T .C . 8 ; Fla . Peach Corp . V . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 18 678 . Generally, we grant summary judgment if the 19 pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions , 20 admissions or any other acceptable materials show that 21 there is no genuine issue of any material fact and a 1 22 decision may be rendered as a matter of law . Rul e 23 121(b) ; see Sundstrand Corp . v Commissioner , 98 T .C . 24 518 ; Zaentz v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 753 . 25 The moving party, Respondent in this case, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628 ;4888 7 1 bears the burden of proving that there is no genuin e 2 issue of material fact . Dahlstrom v . Commissioner , 85 3 T .C . 812 ; Jacklin v . Commissioner , 79 T .C . 340 . 4 Factual interferences will be made in a manner most 5 favorable to the party opposing summary judgment , 6 Petitioner in this case . Dah strom v . Commissioner , 7 supra at 821 . Generally, we agree with Respondent 8 that a taxpayer cannot challenge an underlying ta x 9 liability in a collection due process hearing, and 10 therefore, this Court cannot review such underlyin g 11 tax liability if the taxpayer had received a notice o f 12 deficiency or otherwise had ari opportunity to dispute 13 the underlying liability . Section 6330( c)(2)(B) . 14 Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides as follows : 15 "Underlying liability . The person may also raise at 16 the hearing challenges to the existence or amount o f 17 the . underlying tax liability for any tax period if the 18 person did not receive any statutory notice o f 19 deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise 20 have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability . " 21 The only issue that Petitioner seeks t o 22 raise in these proceedings is his contention that h e 23 is not liable for the income taxes determined fo r 24 2005 . However, Petitioner is not entitled t o 25 challenge his tax liability for 2005 in these Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 proceedings because he received a notice of deficienc y 2 for 2005 and he already had a opportunity to disput e 3 his tax liability for that year . See, e .g ., Pierson 4 v . Commissioner , 115 T .C . 576 ; Sego v . Commissioner , 5 114 T .C . 604 ; Goza v . Commissioner, 114 T .C . 17 6 6 (granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a 7 claim upon which relief can be granted where taxpaye r 8 received notice of deficiency but at hearing, and i n 9 this Court, did not raise a spousal defense, challenge 10 to the appropriateness of thelicollection action o r 11 offer collection alternatives) . Accordingly, we find 12 that there is no genuine issue of any material fact in 13 this case and that a decision for Respondent may b e 14 rendered as a matter of law . Rule 121(b) . 15 X . 16 Upon consideration of the foregoing, a n 17 order will be issued sustaining the subject notice of 18 determination . 19 XI . 20 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 21 fact .and opinion in this case . 22 (Whereupon, at 3 :261p .m ., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter Was concluded . ) 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 x14888