Redmond v. Comm'r

T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-10
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DAVID M. REDMOND, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 20004-07S. Filed January 12, 2009.
David M. Redmond, pro se.
Chong S. Hong and James A. Whitten, for respondent.
GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the
provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b),
the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,
and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other
case.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as amended.
- 2 -
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this collection case on
the ground of mootness, and petitioner objected. Respondent
advised that all of the tax liabilities had been satisfied by
various offsets and abatements. Petitioner objects on the ground
that he has not had the opportunity to address the underlying
merits of the tax, and he believes that he could show entitlement
to deductions that would reduce his tax liabilities. A hearing
on respondent’s motion to dismiss on ground of mootness was held
in Fresno, California, on October 27, 2008.
Background
Petitioner’s journey began with his attempt to file Federal
income tax returns showing zero tax and posing various reasons
that respondent found frivolous so that the returns were
rejected. An example of one of the reasons petitioner advanced
for not reporting income is that only foreign income is taxable.
On some of the attempted return filings petitioner intentionally
did not place an identification number (Social Security or other
identifying number), and he contended that he was not required to
do so because he was a U.S. citizen. For each of the tax years
2001 through 2004 respondent sent petitioner a letter advising
that his returns were being rejected, and petitioner persisted in
his position that the amounts he received (the amounts were
approximately $64,000 to $69,000 annually) were not taxable.
In each instance respondent prepared a so-called substitute
for return for petitioner under section 6020(b) reflecting the
- 3 -
income that third-party payors had reported to respondent. Each
time respondent prepared a substitute for return, respondent
mailed to petitioner a notice of deficiency setting forth the
amount of income and tax, and petitioner, in each instance,
received the notice of deficiency but failed to petition this
Court. Because of petitioner’s failures to petition the Court,
respondent was able to assess the deficiencies. Subsequently,
petitioner had some contact with respondent’s audit examiners,
and he attempted to convince them that his taxes should be abated
by some amount. Respondent’s tax examiners did not consider
petitioner’s proffer sufficient.
Thereafter, respondent advised petitioner of intended
collection activity for 2002 and 2003 income taxes and 2001
through 2004 penalties by means of a Letter 1058, Final Notice of
Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, issued
December 18, 2006. Likewise on December 26, 2006, respondent
notified petitioner of the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien
by means of a Letter 3172, Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and
Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, covering 2001 through
2003 income tax and penalties for 2001 through 2004. Petitioner
sought and was granted a hearing by respondent’s settlement
officer. On July 2, 2007, petitioner submitted Forms 1040X,
Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the years 2001
through 2004 showing his income, deductions, exemptions, credits,
etc. The settlement officer advised petitioner that only the
- 4 -
2004 tax year was open for purposes of a refund or offset. With
respect to the remaining 3 years, the periods for claiming a
refund had expired.
Petitioner contended that it was respondent’s delays that
caused the periods for refund to expire and that he should
receive overpayments for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax years. In
the final determination, the settlement officer advised that the
notices of lien would not be released and that collection
activity would go forward. Petitioner was also advised that he
was not entitled to contest the underlying merits of the tax
liabilities because he already had that opportunity when he
received notices of deficiency, which he chose not to pursue.
Petitioner sought relief from respondent’s final determination by
filing a petition with this Court.
Discussion
After the filing of petitioner’s petition, respondent
collected the taxes and penalties that were the subject of the
notice of lien filings and notice of intention to collect.
Accordingly, respondent seeks dismissal of this proceeding on
the ground of mootness. Petitioner contends that he should be
entitled to present the merits of his “Amended Returns” and to
obtain relief in the form of overpayments or refunds of tax
collected. Petitioner also claims that it was respondent who
caused the delay that resulted in petitioner’s being unable to
obtain refunds for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
- 5 -
The collection of the liabilities that are the subject of
this proceeding and respondent’s release of the lien obviates the
need to decide whether respondent can proceed with collection
and/or the need to address the lien filing. See Greene-Thapedi
v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 8 (2006).
In any event, petitioner would not be entitled to contest
the underlying merits of the tax liabilities for 2001 through
2004. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Petitioner failed to timely file
meaningful returns and made arguments without merit, rather than
presenting substantiation for deductions, exemptions, or credits
to which he may have been entitled. He played a cat-and-mouse
game with respondent, and the time periods for claiming any
credits, overpayments, or offsets expired while he played.
It may be that petitioner could have shown entitlement to
additional deductions and/or an overpayment, but he chose not to
pursue respondent’s determinations of the underlying deficiencies
when he was confronted with the notices of deficiency.
Accordingly, and in conformity with the Court’s
pronouncement at the hearing,
An appropriate order of
dismissal will be entered.