TAX COURT OPINION

Case: John Whatmough
Docket Number: 22494-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/09/2010
Pages: 8

5vBl\TTea-K"UJ'w UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D.C. 2021 7 JOHN WHATMOUGH, Petitioner, v . ) Docket No . 22494-08L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Cleveland, Ohio, on June 22, 2010, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact . and opinion , decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judg e Date : Washington, D .C . July 9, 2010 SERVED JUL_ 13 2010, If 1 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE DIANE L . KROUPA JUNE 22, 201 0 2 JOHN WHATMOUGH V . COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO : 22494-08 L 4 3 4 The Court has decided to render opal finding s 5 of fact and opinion in this case and the fo 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact 7 opinion . These oral findings of fact and op 8 not be relied upon as precedent in any othe r 9 This bench opinion is made pursua n It to the 10 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 11 Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of 12 Practice and Procedure . 13 This is a collection review case i volvin g 14 the filing of a notice of Federal tax levy to collect 15 petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 2002 and 2003, the 16 years at issue . All section references are o th e 17 Internal Revenue Code for the years at issue and all 18 Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice 1 19 20 and Procedure . Mr . Whatmough appeared pro se, and Cathy 21 Horner appeared on behalf of respondent . 2 2 23 FINDINGS OF FAC T The record establishes or the parties do no t 24 dispute the following facts : 25 Petitioner resided in Ohio at the time h e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 filed the petition in this case . 2 Petitioner failed to file a Federal incom e 3 tax return for 2002 and 2003 . . Respondent's income 4 reporting program determined petitioner had a $10,932 5 deficiency for 2002 and a $2,901 deficiency for 2003 . 6 Respondent also found petitioner liable for an addition 7 to tax for failure to file a return and a penalty for 8 failure to make estimated tax payments . Respondent 9 issued two statutory notices of deficiency ~ o 10 petitioner at his last known address by certified mail 11 on October 16, 2006, as shown by the postmark dat e 12 stamped on the certified mail list, Substitute USPS 13 Form 3877 . Petitioner maintains the same address at 14 the time of trial . Petitioner failed to tirdely file a 15 petition with this Court with respect to the deficiency 16 notices . Respondent assessed against petitioner th e 17 amounts shown on the deficiency notices . 18 Petitioner failed to pay the assessed amounts 19 and respondent thereafter sent petitioner a Fina l 20 Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a 21 Hearing (CDP notice) informing petitioner tha t 22 respondent was proposing to collect the unpaid amounts 23 through levy . Petitioner requested a face-to-fac e 24 collection due process hearing (CDP hearing) to 25 challenge the underlying tax liabilities . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 6 1 The South Bend Appeals Office acknowledge d 2 receiving petitioner's hearing request and scheduled a 3 telephone conference with petitioner . The ppeal s 4 Office informed petitioner that he would be allowed a 5 face-to-face CDP hearing on any nonfrivolous issues and 6 that he would need to provide the nonfrivolous issue s 7 in writing within 14 days . Moreover, the Appeal s 8 Office informed petitioner that he needed to file tax 9 returns for 2005 and 2006 and provide proof of current 10 year taxpayer compliance . Petitioner also heeded to 11 provide respondent with information pertaining to his 12 then current financial situation and complete Form 433- 13 A, Collection Information Statement . The Appeal s 14 Office warned petitioner that his arguments had been 15 considered frivolous by this Court and other courts and 16 he was at risk of having a $25,000 penalty impose d 17 against him . The Appeals Office also advisE! d 18 petitioner that he would not be able to contest th e 19 underlying tax liability in the hearing bec use he ha d 20 already had an opportunity to dispute the liability 21 when he received the deficiency notices . 22 Petitioner failed to call in for the schedule 23 conference call and did not provide the Appeals Office 24 with the requested information . The Appeals Offic e 25 gave petitioner an additional 14 days to provid e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 financial information and proof of his filin g 2 obligations . Petitioner was told that, if he failed to 3 provide the information, respondent would make a 4 determination based on the information already on file . 5 Without any additional information fro m 6 petitioner, the Appeals Office sustained the propose d 7 levy in a Notice of Determination Concerning Collectio n 8 Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330 o n August 5 , 9 2008, regarding both of the year at issue . Petitione r 10 timely filed a petition with this Court to Contest th e 11 instant action . 12 OPINION 13 We are asked to review a determination made 14 by respondent's Appeals Office in a collection action . 15 Taxpayers must be provided written notice of thei r 16 right to request a hearing at least 30 days befor e 17 respondent may levy on any property or property right . 18 In a CDP hearing, taxpayers may raise any relevan t 19 issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, 20 including appropriate spousal defenses ; the 21 appropriateness of the collection action ; an i 22 alternative means of collection . Sec . 6330(~)(2)(A) . 23 Taxpayers may also challenge the existence or amount o f 24 the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did no t 25 receive a deficiency notice for such tax liability o r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute suc h 2 tax liability . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(B) . Taxpayers ar e 3 precluded from challenging the underlying liability in 4 a CDP hearing if they received a deficiency notic e 5 because such notice gave them the opportune y to 6 challenge the underlying amount in this Cou~t . 7 Petitioner contends he should be permitted t o 8 challenge his underlying tax liability in a CDP hearing 9 because respondent cannot prove that petitioner signed 10 the receipt for receiving the deficiency notices b y 11 certified mail . We note that petitioner admitted a t 12 calendar call and admitted during the trial that he did 13 not file tax returns for either of the two rears at 14 issue and admitted that he received notice from the IRS 15 seeking a tax return from him and payment o f the taxes 16 due . 17 If we were to accept petitioner's argument, 18 we would allow taxpayers who deny they have an 19 obligation to pay taxes to refuse delivery and thereby 20 avoid collection . This we refuse to do . We notic e 21 further that other correspondence respondent sent to 22 petitioner in this caseAthe levy notice and the 23 determination notice, all addressed to petitioner a t 24 the same address as the deficiency notices , were 25 received by petitioner . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 Moreover, the administrative record compile d 2 by the Appeals Office contains copies of the deficiency 3 notices and the U .S . Postal Service Form 3877 mailing 4 certificate showing that the deficiency not ces were 5 mailed to petitioner's address of record -- and current 6 address -- on October 16, 2006 . Compliance with the 7 Form 3877 mailing procedures raises the pre umption o f official regularity in favor of respondent to prov e 9 property mailing of the deficiency notice . Coleman v . 10 Commissioner , 94 T .C . 82, 91 (1990) . In the absence of 11 clear evidence to the contrary, receipt of the notice 12 will be presumed . Sego v . Commissioner , 11~ T .C . 604, 13 611 (2000) ; Zenco Engineering Corp . v . Commissioner , 75 14 T .C . 318, 323 (1980) . 15 Petitioner contends that the online trackin g 16 system of the USPS tracking numbers shows that the 17 deficiency notices were delivered to differen t 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 addresses in 2008 . Petitioner disregards, however, the USPS's business practice of recycling certi tracking numbers . Petitioner has failed to ied mail overcom e the presumption of regularity and of delive ry referred to in Sego . We conclude that petitioner re ceived the deficiency notices for 2002 and 2003, and t herefore is precluded from contesting the existence or amount o f the underlying liability in this section 63 3 0 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 proceeding . 2 Petitioner has made no other challenges . 3 Accordingly, we uphold respondent's determination to 1 4 proceed with the collection . 5 Petitioner filed a motion to remand on Jun e 6 9, 2010 and June 21, 2010, both of which we deny . 7 For the foregoing reasons, a decision shall 8 be entered for respondent . 9 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 10 fact and opinion in this case . 11 (Whereupon, at 7 :22 p .m ., the bench opinion 12 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888