Kathleen A. Vinatieri v. Commissioner

133 T.C. No. 16UNITED STATES TAX COURT
KATHLEEN A. VINATIERI, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 15895-08L. Filed December 21, 2009.
R issued P a notice of intent to levy to collect
P’s unpaid Federal income taxes for 2002. P timely
requested a hearing under sec. 6330, I.R.C.
P submitted to the settlement officer Form 433-A,
Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and
Self-Employed Individuals, indicating she had monthly
income of $800 and expenses of $800, had $14 cash on
hand, and owned a 1996 Toyota Corolla four-door sedan
with 243,000 miles and a value of $300. If P’s wages
are levied on she will be unable to pay her reasonable
basic living expenses. If her car is levied on, she
will be unable to work.
The settlement officer stated in her log that P
meets the criteria to have her account reported as
currently not collectible because of hardship in
accordance with the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM).
However, R’s Appeals Office issued a notice of
determination to proceed with levy, stating that P was
- 2 -
not entitled to collection alternatives because she had
not filed her 2005 and 2007 Federal income tax returns.
P timely petitioned for review of that determination
under sec. 6330(d), I.R.C. R filed a motion for
summary judgment. P, proceeding pro se, did not file a
cross-motion for summary judgment.
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the
Secretary must release a levy upon all, or part of, a
taxpayer’s property or rights to property if, inter
alia, the Secretary has determined that the levy is
creating an economic hardship due to the financial
condition of the taxpayer. Sec. 6343(a)(1)(D), I.R.C.
The regulations provide that a levy is creating an
economic hardship due to the financial condition of an
individual taxpayer and must be released “if
satisfaction of the levy in whole or in part will cause
an individual taxpayer to be unable to pay his or her
reasonable basic living expenses.” Sec.
301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
1. Held: Sec. 6343(a)(1)(D), I.R.C., and sec.
301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs., require
release of a levy that creates an economic hardship
regardless of the taxpayer’s noncompliance with filing
required returns.
2. Held, further, a levy on P’s wages or car
would cause P to be unable to pay her reasonable basic
living expenses, creating an economic hardship that
would require release of the levy pursuant to sec.
6343(a)(1)(D), I.R.C., and sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
3. Held, further, R’s motion for summary judgment
is denied because R’s determination to proceed with the
levy was wrong as a matter of law and, therefore, was
an abuse of discretion.
Kathleen A. Vinatieri, pro se.
Martha J. Weber, for respondent.
- 3 -
OPINION
DAWSON, Judge: This matter is before the Court on
respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule
121.1 Petitioner timely filed a petition pursuant to section
6330(d) appealing respondent’s determination to proceed with
collection by levy of petitioner’s 2002 income tax liability.
The issue to be decided is whether respondent’s determination was
an abuse of discretion.
Background
Petitioner resided in Tennessee when she filed the petition.
Her residence is an apartment that she rents for $600 per month.
On September 13, 2007, respondent sent petitioner a Final
Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing
(levy notice). The underlying tax liability was attributable to
unpaid self-assessed tax reported on her 2002 return. Petitioner
timely requested a hearing on September 24, 2007, and the hearing
was conducted through correspondence and by telephone with the
settlement officer.
Petitioner first learned of the collection activity when her
employer notified her about the proposed levy on her wages. When
the settlement officer asked petitioner whether she wanted to
1
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code.
- 4 -
enter into an installment agreement, petitioner said “she has
nothing.”2 Petitioner told the settlement officer that she has
pulmonary fibrosis and is dying. Because of her health she can
only find part-time employment.
The settlement officer could not find a record that
petitioner had filed a return for 2005. Petitioner explained to
the settlement officer that the payroll company responsible for
completing her 2005 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, was no
longer in business. She had attempted to get the tax information
from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), but the IRS had no
information regarding her income for 2005.
The settlement officer told petitioner that she might be
able to have her account placed in currently not collectible
status. The settlement officer asked petitioner to submit a Form
433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and
Self-Employed Individuals, and a diagnosis regarding her current
health condition.
Petitioner sent a completed Form 433-A, indicating she had
monthly income of $800 and expenses of $800, had $14 cash on
hand, and owned a 1996 Toyota Corolla four-door sedan with
243,000 miles and a value of $300. The Form 433-A reported that
2
Petitioner explained to the settlement officer that she had
previously agreed to pay in installments and that she was told
she would be sent envelopes for each payment, but she never
received the envelopes or monthly bills.
- 5 -
petitioner did not own any other assets. Verification received
by the settlement officer was consistent with the information
petitioner provided in the Form 433-A. Petitioner was unable to
obtain a written diagnosis of her medical condition from her
physician because her physician would provide a diagnosis only in
a claim for worker’s compensation.
The settlement officer’s log entry dated May 15, 2008,
states:
TP [petitioner] meets the criteria to have account
placed in CNC [currently not collectible] status per
IRM 5.16.[1.]2.9 Hardship. The balance due is less
than 10K and the TP has stated she has a terminal
illness. CIS verification is not required. The TP has
stated she has nothing and is not able to full pay or
make payments. However, the TP is not in compliance.
The TP has not filed a 2005 return and there is no
record of the 2007 tax return being filed. The TP
stated she does not have income information for 2005
and company that did payroll is no longer in business.
TP stated she contacted IRS and they advised her they
have no income information. There is no information
per IRTRL. S/O [the settlement officer] contacted TP
regarding filing of the 2007 return. The TP stated the
return was filed late. The S/O requested the TP fax a
copy of the return with the W-2. TP to fax information
by 5-19-08. S/O asked TP if she obtained health
diagnosis and the TP stated the doctor would only give
her something if she is applying for diability. S/O
requested income information for 2005 per IRPTRE.
The settlement officer’s log entry dated May 20, 2008,
states:
TP did not provide a copy of 2007 return and there
is no record that the return has been filed per IDRS
research. The TP was employed in 2007 and is currently
employed. The 2005 return has not been filed. Since
the TP is not in compliance, collection alternative
cannot be considered. S/O will issue determination
- 6 -
letter. If the 2005 income information is received,
the S/O will forward it to the TP.
Respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330
(notice of determination) dated June 2, 2008, sustaining the
proposed levy action and stating that, because petitioner was not
in compliance with filing the required tax returns, a collection
alternative could not be considered. The notice of determination
was reviewed and signed by the Appeals team manager. The
attachment to the notice of determination stated:
The settlement officer inquired about a collection
alternative and you stated you could not make payments.
You stated you had pulmonary fibrosis and can only work
part-time hours due to your heath condition. The
Settlement officer [who] advised you of the collection
alternative however explained a collection alternative
could not be considered because you were not in
compliance with filing required tax returns. * * *
The attachment explained the balancing of efficient tax
collection with concern regarding intrusiveness as follows:
Appeals has verified, or received verification,
that applicable laws and administrative procedures have
been met; has considered the issues raised; and has
balanced the proposed collection with the legitimate
concern that such action be no more intrusive than
necessary by IRC Section 6330(c)(3).
Collection alternatives include full payment,
installment agreement, offer in compromise and
currently-not-collectible. However, since unfiled tax
returns exist, the only alternative at present is to
take enforced action by levying your assets. It is
Appeals decision that the proposed levy action is
appropriate. The proposed levy action balances the
need for the efficient collection of the taxes with the
- 7 -
legitimate concern that any collection action be no
more intrusive than necessary.
Neither the notice of determination nor the attachment reflect
any consideration of the fact that the levy would create an
economic hardship as stated by the settlement officer in her
daily log and supported by the Form 433-A petitioner submitted.
Petitioner timely filed a petition in this Court challenging
respondent’s determination. Respondent filed the motion for
summary judgment, and the Court ordered petitioner to file a
response.3 Petitioner filed a response to respondent’s motion
for summary judgment but did not file a cross-motion for summary
judgment.4 In her response petitioner describes her situation as
follows:
3
In the order we observed that our preliminary review of the
record indicated that the proposed levy action involved a
hardship situation and that petitioner needed the assistance of
an attorney. We urged petitioner to contact the legal aid
society or the local bar association pro bono services and
provided their addresses and phone numbers.
4
After petitioner filed her response to respondent’s motion
for summary judgment, respondent filed a motion to continue the
case wherein respondent stated that petitioner was in the process
of submitting a collection alternative to the IRS and that, if
the alternative is accepted by the IRS, a trial in this case
would not be necessary. The Court granted respondent’s motion
and directed the parties to file a status report on or before
July 27, 2009. In a status report filed on July 17, 2009,
respondent reported that respondent has not received any
communication from petitioner and requested the Court to grant
respondent’s motion for summary judgment.
- 8 -
To Whom It May Concern,
I don’t know what you want to know cause I don’t
understand all the legal stuff you sent me. I can’t
afford a lawyer. And the closest legal aid is in
Knoxville 30 miles away. My poor car will not go that
far. So I will start at the beginning of my story and
see if you can help me.
I was in an unhealthy relationship for many years.
During a great deal of that time my husband was doing
alcohol and drugs. I had 2 children plus his 3 to take
care of. I had been doing janitorial work at a strip
mall * * *. It was the only place that I could work
that I could take my [then] 3 year old daughter with
me. I could not support my family and pay day care.
* * * My husband took care of bills and such cause he
demanded that I turn over my money. We even got a
divorce during that time cause I was not obeying him.
* * *
Now I am not looking for sympathy just
understanding. Do you know how hard it is to be a
single parent? * * * I have a high school education
and nothing else.
It was nearly five years before I was notified of
a problem by the I.R.S. Danny [petitioner’s former
spouse] was suppose to be doing taxes. He even made me
sign a form that because he made more money he could
claim my kids on his taxes cause we were no longer
legally married.
I got all the W-2’s from the I.R.S. except 2005
that they still have not sent me. That is why they are
not done. I did all those taxes and forfeited the
refunds. I do not remember what that total came to.
But it was enough to pay I would say most of back
taxes. The 2007 taxes were late and I don’t know why
they didn’t arrive. I sent a second copy in as soon as
my son gave me my copy. He had my copy for college
financial aid and he lost them for a bit of time.
I am not a rich person. I work in a job so I can
be home with my daughter. I left my husband in July
after he threatened to beat my daughter with a baseball
bat. Beating me is one thing but I could not have him
beating my girl. So I am a single parent again. Right
- 9 -
now we have not had much work in nearly a year. I have
rent of 600 a mo. Utilities of 150 and get food stamps
or I wouldn’t eat. I make about 700-800 [per] month.
There are no better jobs in our town. My daughter is
only 11 so its not like I can leave her alone at night
or on weekends. D.H.S. says it’s not even legal. She
is too young. There is no child care and I have no
family here. I have pulmonary fibrosis that makes me
sick all the time and the diagnosis says I have about
10 yrs to live. Right now I can work thank God.
I did my taxes this year [for 2008] and you are
getting a little over $4,700. I’m not asking for much
just a break. You can have my tax returns [refunds ?]
I don’t care. Well I do that is a tremendous loss but
oh well. I don’t have any money to send you on a
monthly basis. Can we stop all the penalties. They
are killing me. I will never be able to pay it off.
* * * I let a relationship screw me up. I am truly
sorry for that and am begging for a lifeline here. You
can come to my home and see for yourself. I don’t have
fancy t.v.’s or even cable except for internet. I
can’t afford a phone. My clothes have holes in them.
I even cut my own hair. If I could pay this off faster
I would just to stop the nightmares it gives me.
Discussion
A. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is used to expedite litigation and avoid
unnecessary and expensive trials. The Court will render a
decision on a motion for summary judgment if the pleadings,
answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and other
acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a
decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b).
Because the effect of granting a motion for summary judgment is
to decide the case against a party without allowing that party an
- 10 -
opportunity for a trial, the Court should grant the motion only
after a careful consideration of the case. Associated Press v.
United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6 (1945); Kroh v. Commissioner, 98
T.C. 383, 390 (1992).
For purposes of respondent’s motion for summary judgment,
respondent has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine
issue as to any material fact. Petitioner is afforded the
benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the material submitted by
both sides is viewed in the light most favorable to petitioner.
See, e.g., Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970);
Kroh v. Commissioner, supra at 390.
Respondent moves the Court for summary judgment on the
ground that the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion
in rejecting collection alternatives and determining to proceed
with levy because petitioner was not in compliance with the
filing requirements. Petitioner asks that the levy not be
sustained because, if her wages are taken, she will be unable to
pay her basic living expenses; and, if her car is taken, she will
not be able to work.
B. Collection of Federal Taxes by Levy
If a taxpayer liable for Federal taxes fails to pay the
taxes within 10 days after notice and demand, section 6331
authorizes the Secretary to collect the tax by levy upon all
property and rights to property (except any property that is
- 11 -
exempt under section 6334) belonging to the taxpayer or on which
there is a lien for the payment of the tax.
Section 6343(a)(1) provides that, under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, if the Secretary has determined that
the levy is creating an economic hardship due to the financial
condition of the taxpayer, the Secretary must release a levy upon
all, or part of, a taxpayer’s property or rights to property.5
Sec. 6343(a)(1)(D). The regulations provide that a levy is
creating an economic hardship due to the financial condition of
an individual taxpayer and must be released “if satisfaction of
the levy in whole or in part will cause an individual taxpayer to
be unable to pay his or her reasonable basic living expenses.”
Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
A taxpayer alleging that collection of the liability would
create undue hardship must submit complete and current financial
data to enable the Commissioner to evaluate the taxpayer’s
qualification for collection alternatives or other relief.
5
The regulations provide a method whereby a taxpayer may
inform the Secretary that a levy is creating an economic hardship
and request that the levy be released. See sec. 301.6343-1(c),
Proced. & Admin. Regs. “A taxpayer who wishes to obtain a
release of a levy must submit a request for release in writing or
by telephone to the district director for the Internal Revenue
district in which the levy was made.” Id. However, service
center directors and compliance center directors (to whom
requests by taxpayers are not made) who have determined that a
levy is creating an economic hardship must also release the levy
and promptly notify the taxpayer of the release pursuant to sec.
301.6343-1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
- 12 -
Picchiottino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-231. The
regulations provide that, for purposes of determining the
taxpayer’s reasonable amount of living expenses, any information
that is provided by the taxpayer is to be considered, including
the following:
(A) The taxpayer’s age, employment status and
history, ability to earn, number of dependents, and
status as a dependent of someone else;
(B) The amount reasonably necessary for food,
clothing, housing * * *, medical expenses * * *,
transportation, current tax payments * * *, alimony,
child support, or other court-ordered payments, and
expenses necessary to the taxpayer’s production of
income * * *;
(C) The cost of living in the geographic area in
which the taxpayer resides;
(D) The amount of property exempt from levy which
is available to pay the taxpayer’s expenses;
(E) Any extraordinary circumstances such as
special education expenses, a medical catastrophe, or
natural disaster; and
(F) Any other factor that the taxpayer claims
bears on economic hardship and brings to the attention
of the director.
Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
C. Section 6330 Procedures
Section 6330(a) provides the general rule that no levy may
be made on any property or right to property of any taxpayer
unless the Secretary has provided 30 days’ notice to the taxpayer
of the right to an administrative hearing before the levy is
carried out. If the taxpayer makes a timely request for an
- 13 -
administrative hearing, the hearing is conducted by the IRS
Office of Appeals (Appeals Office) before an impartial officer.
Sec. 6330(b)(1), (3).
The taxpayer may raise any relevant issue during the
hearing, including appropriate spousal defenses and challenges to
“the appropriateness of collection actions”, and may make “offers
of collection alternatives, which may include the posting of a
bond, the substitution of other assets, an installment agreement,
or an offer-in-compromise.” Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). The taxpayer
also may raise challenges to the existence or amount of the
underlying tax liability if he/she did not receive a notice of
deficiency for that liability or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute it. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
During the hearing the Appeals officer must verify that the
requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have
been met, consider issues properly raised by the taxpayer, and
consider whether any proposed collection action balances the need
for the efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer’s
legitimate concern that any collection action be no more
intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c)(3). The Appeals Office
then issues a notice of determination indicating whether the
proposed levy may proceed.
Under section 6330(d)(1) the taxpayer may petition this
Court to review the determination made by the Appeals Office.
- 14 -
See sec. 301.6330-1(f)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Where, as in
this case, the underlying tax liability is not at issue, we
review the Appeals Office’s determinations regarding the
collection action for abuse of discretion. Goza v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 176 (2000). An abuse of discretion occurs if the
Appeals Office exercises its discretion “arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law.” Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
When a taxpayer establishes in a pre-levy collection hearing
under section 6330 that the proposed levy would create an
economic hardship, it is unreasonable for the settlement officer
to determine to proceed with the levy which section 6343(a)(1)(D)
would require the IRS to immediately release. Rather than
proceed with the levy, the settlement officer should consider
alternatives to the levy.
Respondent argues under the holdings of Rodriguez v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-153, and McCorkle v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-34, that there is no abuse of discretion if a
settlement officer rejects collection alternatives because the
taxpayer was not in compliance with the filing requirements for
all required tax returns.6
6
Generally, the IRS will not grant an installment agreement,
accept an offer-in-compromise, or report an account as currently
not collectible if any tax return for which the taxpayer has a
filing requirement has not been filed. See Internal Revenue
(continued...)
- 15 -
Generally, we have found the Commissioner’s policy requiring
individuals seeking collection alternatives to be current with
filing their returns to be reasonable.7 However, taxpayers in
those cases have had sufficient income to meet basic living
expenses. See, e.g., Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 165, 178
(2005) (taxpayers claimed hardship because the tax liability was
disproportionate to the value that they received from initial
stock offerings and because they had already been forced to
change their lifestyle), affd. 454 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 2006);
Peterson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-46 (the Court upheld
rejection of taxpayers’ offer of $20,000 to compromise $70,000
liability where, although they had minimal income from Social
Security retirement and disability payments, they had reasonable
collection potential of $68,000 from two parcels of real property
valued at $80,000); Fangonilo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-75(Commissioner’s refusal to treat taxpayer’s tax liability as
6
(...continued)
Manual pts. 5.14.1.4.1(4)-(6) (Sept. 26, 2008) (installment
agreements); 5.8.3.13(1), (2), (4) (Sept. 23, 2008) (offers-in-
compromise); 5.16.1.1(5) and (6), 5.16.1.2.9(8) (May 5, 2009)
(currently not collectible), 5.1.11.2.3 (June 2, 2004) (general
collection procedures).
7
In Estate of Atkinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-89,
we found reasonable requirements that an entity seeking
collection alternatives to full payment, including reporting an
account as currently not collectible, filing any outstanding tax
returns and submitting a full financial statement and
verification information for analysis. Mandatory release of levy
creating an economic hardship applies only to individuals. Sec.
301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
- 16 -
currently not collectible was not an abuse of discretion where
although taxpayer’s income was not sufficient to meet his stated
monthly living expenses, he had a liquid asset worth more than
his tax liability); Willis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-302(taxpayers’ ability to make some payments toward their cumulative
liability made them ineligible to have the cumulative liability
classified as currently not collectible); Rodriguez v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-153 (taxpayer had not filed returns
for 12 years and did not submit all of the financial information
supporting her offer-in-compromise that the settlement officer
requested); Ashley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-286 (taxpayer
had income in excess of expenses and sufficient equity in his
real property to pay his tax liability in full).
We have found no cases addressing the requirement that the
taxpayer be current with filing returns in a levy case involving
economic hardship under section 6343(a)(1)(D) and section
301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Neither section 6343
nor the regulations condition a release of a levy that is
creating an economic hardship on the taxpayer’s compliance with
filing and payment requirements. The purpose of section 6330 is
to “afford taxpayers adequate notice of collection activity and a
meaningful hearing before the IRS deprives them of their
property.” S. Rept. 105-174, at 67 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 537, 603
(emphasis added). A determination in a hardship case to proceed
- 17 -
with a levy that must immediately be released is unreasonable and
undermines public confidence that tax laws are being administered
fairly. In a section 6330 pre-levy hearing, if the taxpayer has
provided information that establishes the proposed levy will
create an economic hardship, the settlement officer cannot go
forward with the levy and must consider an alternative.
D. Appeals Office’s Determination To Proceed With Levy of
Petitioner’s Assets
The financial information petitioner submitted on the Form
433-A, which was consistent with other information the settlement
officer obtained, showed that if petitioner’s wages are levied
on, she will be unable to pay her basic living expenses; and, if
her car is levied on, she will not be able to work. After
analyzing petitioner’s financial information, the settlement
officer concluded that the levy would create an economic hardship
and so stated in her log. However, the settlement officer
determined collection alternatives to the levy, including an
installment agreement, an offer-in-compromise, and reporting the
account as currently not collectible, were not available because
petitioner had not filed her 2005 and 2007 returns. The
settlement officer’s determination to proceed with the levy was
reviewed and approved by the Appeals team manager who signed the
notice of determination. Although the attachment to the notice
of determination shows that the Appeals team manager was aware of
petitioner’s financial situation and health problems, the Appeals
- 18 -
team manager signed the notice of determination to proceed with
the levy because petitioner had not filed her 2005 and 2007
returns. Proceeding with the levy would be unreasonable because
section 6343 would require its immediate release, and the
determination to do so was arbitrary. The determination to
proceed with the levy was wrong as a matter of law and,
therefore, was an abuse of discretion. Respondent is not
entitled to summary judgment, and respondent’s motion will be
denied.
An order denying respondent’s
motion will be issued.