DocketNumber: No. 5635-06L
Judges: "Chiechi, Carolyn P."
Filed Date: 6/26/2008
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the following. Petitioner resided in Ohio at the time he filed the petition in this case. On October 1, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a separate notice of deficiency with respect to each of his taxable years 1996 and 1997, which he received. On September 26, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a separate notice of deficiency with respect to each of his taxable years 1998, 1999, and 2000, which he received. On November 7, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency with respect to his taxable year 2001, which he received. In each of those notices, respondent determined a deficiency in, and additions under Petitioner did not file petitions in the Court with respect to the respective notices of deficiency relating to his taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. On March 29, 2004, respondent assessed petitioner's tax, as well as additions to tax under Respondent timely issued to petitioner a notice of balance due with respect to each of petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 1996 through 2001. On August 18, 2005, 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 petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 1996 through 2001. *165 Revenue Service and certain documents titled "IMF MCC TRANSCRIPT-SPECIFIC". In response to petitioner's Form 12153, a settlement officer with the Appeals Office (settlement officer) sent to petitioner a letter dated November 28, 2005 (settlement officer's November 28, 2005 letter). In that letter, the settlement officer admonished petitioner about advancing frivolous arguments and offered petitioner a telephonic conference at 9 a.m. on December 20, 2005, or on another date that was more convenient to petitioner. In the settlement officer's November 28, 2005 letter, the settlement officer also offered petitioner a face-to-face conference if he wished to raise relevant, nonfrivolous issues. In the settlement officer's November 28, 2005 letter, the settlement officer asked petitioner to provide her with copies of his tax returns for his taxable years 2002, 2003, and 2004. By letter dated December 3, 2005, petitioner asked the settlement office to reschedule the telephonic conference to January 17, 2006. By letter dated December 7, 2005, the settlement officer informed petitioner that the telephonic conference had been rescheduled to 9 a.m. on January 17, 2006, as he had requested. In a letter *166 dated January 12, 2006 (petitioner's January 12, 2006 letter), which petitioner characterized as a This is in regard to the Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH) per your letter of December 7, 2005 * * *. This CDPH is being handled by mail, therefore consider this my objections to this alleged Notice of Intent to Levy * * * for the years 1996 through 2001. Petitioner's January 12, 2006 letter contained certain statements, contentions, arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. Petitioner attached to petitioner's January 12, 2006 letter copies of the respective notices of deficiency that respondent issued to him with respect to his taxable years 1996 through 2001. On February 16, 2006, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a notice of determination concerning the collection action(s) under It is the Determination of Appeals not to grant you relief under You requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) On November 28, 2005, I mailed you a hearing appointment letter offering you a telephonic hearing or hearing by correspondence. You were not offered a face-to-face hearing because you indicated in your request you wanted to discuss items that were frivolous or groundless and Appeals does not offer face-to-face hearings if the only items you wish to discuss are of a frivolous nature. You were advised that if you were interested in receiving a face-to-face hearing you *168 needed to be prepared to discuss issues relevant to paying your liability and you needed to submit those issues by the timeframe given. You failed to submit relevant issues and therefore you were not offered a face-to-face hearing. * * * * The proposed levy is the appropriate action in this case based on the reasons as stated below. * * * * You failed to voluntarily file a tax return for income tax periods ending December 31, 1996, December 31, 1997, December 31, 1998, December 31, 1999, December 31, 2000 and December 31, 2001. The IRS prepared the tax returns for you under the Service's substitute-for-return procedures. The IRS issued Letter 3219, Statutory Notice of Deficiency concerning the tax periods ending December 31, 1996 and 1997 on October 1, 2003 for 1998, 1999 and 2000 on November 7, 2005 [sic] for the tax period ending December 31, 2001 and sent them to you by certified mail. The letter notified you of the proposed tax, penalties and interest and gave you the opportunity to contest the proposed assessments by petitioning the United States Tax Court. There is no record that you filed such a petition. The Statutory Notice of Deficiency is your one time opportunity to contest *169 or dispute the liability. The Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing is The liability remained unpaid and your account was then assigned to collection. Collection sent you a Notice of Intent to Levy-Your Right to a Hearing on August 18, 2005. As explained above, your request for a hearing was made timely and you have the right to request judicial review of this Notice of Determination. * * * * Based on the facts presented in the administrative file, the Settlement Officer has verified that all the requirements of various applicable law and administrative procedures have been met. . Assessment was made on the applicable CDP period per . Per transcript review there was a balance due at the time the Notice of Intent to Levy was issued. . The proper computer codes were input to suspend the collection statute while the case is being considered under . You do not have a pending bankruptcy case, nor did you have a pending bankruptcy case at the time the CDP notice was issued. . This Appeals Settlement Officer has had no prior involvement in Appeals or collection activity with respect to the liabilities covered by this hearing. You included a number of disputed issues in your request for a hearing. All of the issues mentioned were items that the courts have determined are frivolous. There was no mention of collection alternatives. You questioned the validity of the 1040 assessments for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 before Appeals. I sent you literal readable Individual Master File transcripts identifying the taxpayer, type of tax, tax period, date and amount of assessment on January 18, 2006. I explained to you via correspondence dated January 18, 2006 the transcripts provided show *171 the same essential information found on Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments and Payments. You failed to identify any irregularity in the assessments for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 and thus I find the assessments to be valid. * * * * * * * * You did not propose any collection alternatives. Most alternatives require that you be in compliance with all filing requirements. You have not filed a return for 2003 or *172 2004. You raised no other relevant issues. Before you decide to petition this Notice of Determination, you should be advised that the U.S. Tax Court is empowered to impose monetary sanctions up to $ 25,000.00 for instituting or maintaining an action before it primarily for delay or for taking a position that is frivolous or groundless. The proposed levy action is appropriate given the facts and circumstances of this particular case. It balances the least intrusive method of collection with the need to efficiently collect taxes, the balance favors the proposed levy, as you presented no information or collection alternative that would weigh against the need for efficient collection. All legal and procedural requirements were *173 met prior to the issuance of the Notice of Intent to levy, and the Settlement Officer concludes that the action was appropriate. The levy action is sustained. On January 15, 2008, the Court issued an Order (January 15, 2008 Order) in which, inter alia, it ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent's motion. In that Order, the Court also concluded that the petition that petitioner filed contained certain statements, contentions, and arguments that the Court found to be frivolous and/or groundless. In the January 15, 2008 Order, the Court reminded petitioner about 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. Petitioner did not file a petition with the Court with respect to any of the respective notices of deficiency that respondent issued to him relating to his taxable years 1996 through 2001. Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability for each of those years is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review the determination of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue for abuse of discretion. As was true of petitioner's position before the Appeals Office, petitioner's position in this case is frivolous and groundless. We find that respondent did not abuse respondent's discretion in making the determinations in the notice of determination with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 1996 through 2001. *175 Although respondent does not ask the Court to impose a penalty on petitioner under We believe that petitioner instituted and maintained the instant proceeding primarily for delay. We have found that petitioner's position in this case is frivolous and groundless. Nonetheless, we shall not impose a penalty under We have considered all of petitioner's statements, 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,
1. Although the Court ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent's motion, petitioner failed to do so.↩
2. 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.
3. Respondent did not determine in the respective notices of deficiency relating to petitioner's taxable years 1996 through 2001 additions to tax under
4. The notice of intent to levy also pertained to a frivolous return penalty under
5. It is not clear from the notice of determination whether the Appeals Office sustained the collection action insofar as it pertained to the respective additions to tax under
6. Petitioner made no filings in this case after the Court issued its January 15, 2008 Order in which the Court reminded him about