TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Scott Eugene Huffaker
Docket Number: 9622-16L
Judge: Morrison
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/02/2017
Pages: 7

CZ UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SCOTT EUGENE HUFFAKER, Petitioner v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 9622-16 L. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER OF SERVICE OF TRANSCRIPT Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, there is transmitted herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Judge Richard T. Morrison, at Mobile, Alabama, on April 28, 2017, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Richard T. Morrison Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. June 2, 2017 SERVED Jun 05 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Richard T. Morrison 2 Huffaker v. Commissioner 3 Dacket No. 9622-16L 4 April 28, 2017 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render ral indings of /act and pinion in this case and the following represents the Court' s fral F/indings of K act and inion. The dral ndings of act and pinion shall not be relied on as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. References to sections are to the Internal Revenue Code. References to Rules are to the Tax 17 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . The Internal Revenue Service's Office of Appeals issued a notice of determination that sustained a proposed levy to collect income tax liabilities of the etitioner, Scott Eugene Huffaker, RTM for the tax years 2005 and 2006. We sustain the notice of determination. The taxpayer bears the burden of proof, 25 with certain exceptions not applicable in this case. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 S e e Rul e 14 2 . r\e Sh Pukhov of fach 6 m corporak FINDINGS OF FACT Huffaker resided in Alabama or Florida when he filed the petition. On August 19, 2015, the espondent (referred to here as the IRS) issued a notice of proposed levy that notified Huffaker of his right to a collection-review hearing. The notice was not signed. On September 8, 2015, Huffaker sent the IRS a request for a collection-review hearing. On March 1, 2016, Settlement Officer Perales had a telephone conference with Huffaker that constituted his collection-review hearing. At the telephone conference, Huffaker informed SO Perales that his religious beliefs prevented him from paying the taxes. On March 23, 2016, the Office of Appeals issued a notice of determination, which consisted--in 20 part--of a cover letter, signed by an Appeals team 21 manager, stating that the proposed levy was 22 23 24 25 sustained. Attached to the cover letter was an unsigned three-page document that was described by the cover letter as "a summary of our determination". DISCUSSION 866.488.DEPO . www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Before the IRS can levy to collect unpaid taxes, it must notify the taxpayer of the taxpayer's right to a collection-review hearing with the Office of Appeals, to be conducted by an Appeals officer. See 6330(a)(1); (b)(1)(C). At the hearing the Appeals officer must verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. See 6330(c)(1). The statute further directs that the determination by an Appeals officer regarding the hearing must take into consideration the verification of the requirements as well as the issues related to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy that were raised by the taxpayer at the hearing. Sec. 6330(c)(2),(3). The determination is reviewable by this Court upon petition of the taxpayer. Sec. 6330(d) (1). .The standard of review used by the Court is abuse-of-discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Huffaker contends that the notice of proposed levy is invalid because it was unsigned. In 21 Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 263 (2002), we 22 23 24 25 considered whether an Appeals officer failed to satisfy the verification requirement because the notice. of proposed levy was not signed. We held that the Code does not require such a notice to be signed. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Id. Huffaker contends that the notice of determination is invalid because it was signed by an Appeals team manager who did not participate in the telephone conference. The notice of determination typically consists of a cover letter signed by the Appeals team manager and a summary of the Appeals officer's determination regarding the matters considered at the hearing. See Criner v. 10. Commissioner, T.C. Memo, 2003-328. The Appeals team 11 manager who signed the cover-letter portion of the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 notice of determination that was sent to Huffaker referred to the determination as "our determination". The summary attached to the letter bore no signature and summarized the determination made in Huffaker's case. If the summary was not written by SO Perales, that fact is not borne out on this record. Huffaker also contends that the notice of determination is invalid because section 6065 requires it to be signed under perjury. But section 6065 does not apply to notices written by the IRS. See Morelli v. Alexander, 920 F.Supp. 556,558 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). And section 6330(a)(3), which sets forth the information that must be required in the notice of determination, does not require a 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 signature. Huffaker has failed to show that the determination in question is not a proper determination under section 6330 or that the Appeals officer failed to perform the required verification. Huffaker contends that, pursuant to the 7 Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, he is 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exempt from federal income taxes. Under the Act, a neutral and generally-applicable law may be applied to religious practices only if the government demonstrates that the application of the law to religious practices is essential to accomplishing an overriding governmental interest or is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest. Adams v. Commissioner, 110 T.C.137,138- R7 140(1998). In Adams we held that uniform, mandatory participation in the federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling state interest and that a taxpayer's participation in the federal income tax system is the only, and thus, the least restrictive, means of furthering the government' s interest. Id. at 139. Therefore, the Act does not exempt Huffaker from federal income taxes. Huffaker contends Adams is no longer good law because it preceded Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S.,__.. A 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 (2014) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. We have examined authorities. They do not change the outcome. Furthermore, we find as a matter of fact that Huffaker does not have a sincerely held religious belief that he cannot pay federal income taxes. He testified that he could not pay taxes on religious grounds. But he also testified that he adheres to various secular theories about why he does not have to pay taxes. Thus, Huffaker's professed beliefs all coincide with his self interest. His belief that he cannot pay taxes is not a sincerely held religious belief. Therefore the federal income tax system does not infringe on his religious practices. A decision will be entered for fhe- RW espondent. This concludes the Court' s oral ndings of RT Fact and inion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:49 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