Williams v. Comm'r ( 2003 )

ARLENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Williams v. Comm'r

No. 3070-0lL

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo 2003-83; 2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 83; 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 1048; T.C.M. (RIA) 55091;

March 24, 2003, Filed

---

An order will be entered to grant respondent's motion for summary judgment

Arlene Williams, pro se.

Wendy S. Harris, for respondent.

Chiechi, Carolyn P.

---

CHIECHI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment (respondent's motion). ^{*84 and arguments that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. section 6651(a)(1)section 6662(a) on, petitioner's tax for her taxable year 1996 in the respective amounts of $ 5,474, $ 1,369, and $ 1,095.}

Petitioner did not file a petition in the Court with respect to the notice relating to her taxable year 1996. Instead, on March 5, 1999, in response to the notice, petitioner sent a letter (petitioner's March 5, 1999 letter) to the Internal Revenue Service that contained statements, contentions, arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. *86 18, and December 27, 1999, respondent issued to petitioner separate notices of balance due with respect to petitioner's unpaid liability for 1996.

On August 19, 2000, respondent issued to petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing (notice of intent to levy) with respect to her taxable year 1996. On or about September 15, 2000, in response to the notice of intent to levy, petitioner filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (Form 12153), and requested a hearing with respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals Office). Petitioner attached a document to her Form 12153 (petitioner's attachment to Form 12153) that contained statements, contentions, arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. *87 On January 31, 2001, respondent's Appeals officer held an Appeals Office hearing with petitioner with respect to the notice of intent to levy. At the Appeals Office hearing, the Appeals officer gave petitioner a summary record of assessments with respect to her taxable year 1996.

On February 6, 2001, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination). An attachment to the notice of determination stated in pertinent part:

   Applicable Law and Administrative Procedures

   Based on the information available, the requirements of

   applicable law and administrative procedures have been met.

  Internal Revenue Code Section 6331(d) requires that the Internal

   Revenue Service notify a taxpayer at least 30 days before a

   Notice of Levy can be issued. The 30-day notice was mailed to

   you at the last known address via certified mail.

  Internal Revenue Code Section 6330(a) states that no levy may be

   made unless the Internal Revenue Service notifies a taxpayer of

   the opportunity for a hearing with the Internal Revenue Service

   Office of Appeals. Letter 1058 "Final Notice," was

   mailed to the taxpayer via certified mail. The taxpayer

   responded timely. Internal Revenue Code Section 6330(c) allows

   the taxpayer to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid

   tax or the proposed levy at the hearing, including appropriate

   spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of

   collection actions and offers of collection alternatives. The

   taxpayer may also raise at the collection due process hearing

   challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax

   liability for any tax period if the taxpayer did not receive any

   statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not

   otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.

   A Collection Due Process Hearing was held and you acknowledged

   receipt of the statutory notice of deficiency. No petition was

   filed. It was explained to you that under IRC 6330(c)(2)(B)    there was an opportunity to dispute the tax liability but you

   chose not to not [sic] petition to the United States Tax Court

   and the only item of discussion are collection alternatives. You

   were not willing to discuss collection alternatives but wanted

   to address the underlying liability instead.

   This Appeals Officer has had no prior involvement with respect

   to these liabilities.

   Relevant Issues Presented by the Taxpayer

   You have stated in your Request for a Collection Due Process

   Hearing in regard to the Notice of Federal Tax Lien, "I am

   challenging the existence of the underlying tax liability."

   I explained to you that you do not have the right to challenge

   the existence of the underlying tax liability because you

   received a statutory notice of deficiency. During the Collection

   Due Process Hearing I provided you a Summary Record of

   Assessment. I have been satisfied all administrative procedures

   have been met.

   No collection alternatives were presented other than what is

   stated above.

   Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusiveness

   No other collection alternatives have been presented as a more

   efficient manner of collecting the amount of tax due. Levy

   action is the most efficient manner of collection.

             Discussion

The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518">98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965">17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). We conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the questions raised in respondent's motion.

Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604">114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176">114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).

Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse respondent's discretion in determining to proceed with the collection action as determined in the notice of determination with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1996.

Although respondent does not ask the Court to impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1), the Court will sua sponte determine whether to impose such a penalty. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty in an amount not to exceed $ 25,000 whenever it appears to the Court, inter alia, that a proceeding before it was instituted or maintained primarily for delay, sec. 6673(a)(1)(A), or that the taxpayer's position in such a proceeding is frivolous or groundless, sec. 6673(a)(1)(B).

In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576">115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000), we issued an unequivocal warning to taxpayers concerning the imposition of a penalty under section 6673(a) on those taxpayers who abuse the protections afforded by sections 6320 and 6330 by instituting or maintaining actions under those sections primarily for delay or by taking frivolous or groundless positions in such actions.

In the instant case, petitioner advances, we believe primarily for delay, frivolous and/or groundless contentions, arguments, and requests, thereby causing the Court to waste its limited resources. We shall impose a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) in the amount of $ 1,600.

We have considered all of petitioner's contentions, arguments, and requests that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.

On the record before us, we shall grant respondent's motion.

To reflect the foregoing,

An order granting respondent's motion and decision will be entered for respondent.

---

Footnotes

• 1. Although the Court ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent's motion, petitioner failed to do so.↩

• 2. Petitioner's attachment to her 1996 return is very similar to the documents that certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court attached to their tax returns. See, e.g., Copeland v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2003-46; Smith v. Comm'r, T. C. Memo. 2003-45↩.

• 3. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩

• 4. Petitioner's March 5, 1999 letter is very similar to the letters that certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court sent to the Internal Revenue Service in response to the notices issued to them. See, e.g., Copeland v. Comm'r, supra; Smith v. Commissioner, supra.↩

• 5. Petitioner's attachment to Form 12153 contained statements, contentions, arguments, and requests that are very similar to the statements, contentions, arguments, and requests contained in the attachments to Forms 12153 filed with the Internal Revenue Service by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court. See, e.g., Fink v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2003-61↩.