Court Opinion

ID: 9962100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 19:02:03.393646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:51.239768
License: Public Domain

United States Tax Court

                                T.C. Memo. 2024-48

                            RICHARD A. SHAW, JR.,
                                 Petitioner

                                           v.

               COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
                           Respondent

                                      __________

Docket No. 9178-23L.                                            Filed April 22, 2024.

                                      __________

Richard A. Shaw, Jr., pro se.

Karl N. Hoffman, Stephen C. Welker, and Karen Y. Leon, for respondent.

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       LAUBER, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case peti-
tioner seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) 1 of the determination
by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) to sustain a notice
of intent to levy. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment,
which we have recharacterized as a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. Respondent contends
that the Petition was filed after expiration of the 30-day filing period
specified in section 6330(d)(1) and that petitioner has alleged no facts
that would entitle him to “equitable tolling” of the deadline. Agreeing
with respondent, we will grant his Motion.

       1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue

Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

                                  Served 04/22/24
                                     2

[*2]                           Background

      The following facts are drawn from the parties’ pleadings, re-
spondent’s Motion, and the administrative record of the CDP proceed-
ing. Petitioner resided in Virginia when he petitioned this Court.

        Petitioner has an unpaid Federal income tax liability for 2014
that totaled $85,906 as of October 2021. In an effort to collect that lia-
bility the IRS issued him, on October 13, 2021, a Notice of Intent to Levy
and Your Right to a Hearing. Petitioner timely submitted Form
12153–C, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing.
He checked boxes indicating that he was unable to pay the tax and re-
questing a collection alternative in the form of an installment agreement
(IA). He did not challenge his underlying tax liability for 2014.

       Petitioner’s case was assigned to a settlement officer (SO) in the
IRS Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals), who verified that the tax
for 2014 had been properly assessed and that other legal and adminis-
trative requirements had been met. On October 28, 2022, the SO sent
petitioner a letter scheduling a telephone conference for December 7,
2021.

       The SO noted in her letter that petitioner had not filed Federal
income tax returns for 2015–2021. She explained that, in order for her
to consider a collection alternative, he needed to come into filing compli-
ance by submitting these returns. The SO also requested that petitioner
submit, in advance of the hearing, a completed financial statement with
supporting documents. Petitioner submitted no delinquent returns and
no financial information of any kind before the conference.

        The telephone conference took place on December 7, 2021, as
scheduled. The SO noted that petitioner had failed to submit Federal
income tax returns for six years and reiterated that, because he was not
in filing compliance, he was ineligible for a collection alternative. In any
event, the SO explained that she could not consider an IA because peti-
tioner had supplied none of the financial information necessary for her
to assess his ability to pay. She indicated that Appeals would issue a
determination letter sustaining the proposed levy and that the case “will
be returned to compliance” for further action. She advised that peti-
tioner “will have 30 days to petition the Tax Court.”

      On January 10, 2023, Appeals issued petitioner a notice of deter-
mination sustaining the proposed levy for the reasons listed in the pre-
vious paragraph. The notice explained that, if petitioner wished to
                                     3

[*3] dispute the determination, he “must file a petition with the United
States Tax Court within 30 days from the date of this letter.”

       On May 27, 2023, petitioner mailed to the Court a letter to which
he attached the notice of determination. On May 30, 2023, we filed that
letter as his Petition. He acknowledged that he had “missed the 30-day
petition period” but stated that he was committed to becoming tax com-
pliant and in “beginning restitution based upon [his] current income.”
He stated: “I would like to know what documentation I would need to
send to anyone who could assist me in determining installment pay-
ments.” In his Answer respondent alleged that “the petition in this case
was filed late or outside of the 30-day statutory period prescribed in [sec-
tion] 6330(d)(1) for an appeal to this Court.”

       On December 18, 2023, the Court set this case for trial in Wash-
ington, D.C., on April 15, 2024. We included with the Notice of Trial a
document captioned “Do you need help with your Tax Court case?” In
that document we explained that “there are tax clinics in your area that
may represent you free of charge if you meet certain qualifications.” We
listed five clinics that serve the Washington, D.C., area and urged un-
represented taxpayers “to contact a tax clinic as soon as possible to in-
quire about possible representation.”

       On February 1, 2024, respondent filed the Administrative Record
of the CDP proceeding and two weeks later filed a motion for summary
judgment (which we have recharacterized as a Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim). In his Motion respondent contends that he “is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law” because the Petition was not
timely filed.

       We directed petitioner to respond to the Motion by March 22,
2024. “In particular,” we stated, “petitioner should address what facts
(if any) explain why he was unable to file his Petition within the 30-day
period for filing CDP petitions.” Petitioner did not respond to the Motion
or to our Order.

                                Discussion

        Under section 6330(d)(1), a person may petition this Court to re-
view a notice of determination concerning collection action under section
6320 or 6330. The 30-day deadline for filing such a petition is a proce-
dural requirement that is not jurisdictional. See Boechler, P.C. v. Com-
missioner, 142 S. Ct. 1493 (2022). We thus have authority to consider a
late-filed petition in a CDP case where the Commissioner raises the
                                          4

[*4] issue of timeliness, provided that the taxpayer shows that he is en-
titled to “equitable tolling.” See id. at 1496. To be entitled to equitable
tolling, the taxpayer must establish that he pursued his rights diligently
and that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing on
time. See Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisc. v. United States, 577 U.S.
250, 255–57 (2016).

       The record of this case shows that the Petition in this case was
not timely filed. The notice of determination was issued January 10,
2023. The 30-day period prescribed by section 6330(d)(1) thus expired
on February 9, 2023, which was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday
in Washington, D.C. As indicated by the postmark on the envelope, the
Petition was mailed May 27, 2023, 107 days past the due date. The
Court received and filed the Petition on May 30, 2023, 110 days after the
due date.

       In the Petition, petitioner acknowledged that he had “missed the
30-day petition period.” But he offered no explanation for his late filing
and alleged no facts that accounted for it. When directing him to re-
spond to the Motion, we specifically advised him to “address what facts
(if any) explain why he was unable to file his Petition within the 30-day
period.” But he did not respond by the deadline we set or subsequently.
Under these circumstances we have no choice but to grant respondent’s
Motion. 2

       In his Petition, petitioner noted his desire to “become compliant
in [his] tax responsibilities” and to begin “restitution based upon [his]
current income.” We note that petitioner is free to come into filing com-
pliance and submit to the IRS at any time, for its consideration and pos-
sible acceptance, a collection alternative in the form of an IA or offer-in-
compromise, supported by the requisite financial information.

       To reflect the foregoing,

       An appropriate order will be issued.

        2 Respondent contends in the Motion that it was not an abuse of discretion for

the SO to sustain the proposed levy action. We need not address this alternative con-
tention in the light of petitioner’s late filing of the Petition.