DocketNumber: No. 7523-03L
Citation Numbers: 2005 T.C. Memo. 24, 89 T.C.M. 762, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 24
Judges: \"Wells, Thomas B.\"
Filed Date: 2/15/2005
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Decision was entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WELLS, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to
Background
At the time of the filing of the petition, petitioner resided in Millis, Massachusetts.
On October 4, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a Proposed Individual Income Tax Assessment, notifying petitioner that respondent had not received from petitioner a 1996 Form 1040, U. S. Individual Income Tax Return (tax return), and advising petitioner to file a tax return in order to receive credit for any available exemptions, deductions, or credits.
Petitioner subsequently submitted a tax return, together with a 1996 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement (W-2). The W-2 reported $ 853.86 in wages from the Town of Millis and $ 16.86 of Federal income tax withheld. On the tax return, petitioner entered zeros on all lines requesting information regarding*25 petitioner's income and requested a refund of $ 16.86. Petitioner attached to the tax return a document making the following assertions: (1) No section of the Internal Revenue Code establishes an income tax liability; (2) no section of the Internal Revenue Code requires that income taxes have to be paid on the basis of a return; (3) the "Privacy Act Notice" contained in the Form 1040 booklet informed petitioner that she was not required to file an income tax return; (4) courts have held that a Form 1040 with zeros in all boxes for income qualified as a tax return; (5) petitioner's 1996 income tax return constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to
In a letter dated April 24, 2000, respondent notified petitioner that respondent considered the tax return to be frivolous and her position to lack any basis in law. Respondent encouraged petitioner to seek advice from competent tax counsel, informed petitioner of the penalty pursuant to
Respondent prepared a substitute tax return 1 for petitioner based on the information reported to respondent by third parties. The substitute tax return reported adjusted gross income of $ 122,429, which included $ 853 in wages, $ 116,188 from the sale of stocks and bonds, $ 5,129 in dividends, and $ 259 in interest.
*27 On July 5, 2000, respondent issued a statutory notice of deficiency for 1996 to petitioner's last known address. Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 31,089, a
Respondent subsequently issued a Final Notice Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. In the notice, respondent informed petitioner of respondent's intent to levy and of petitioner's right to a hearing before respondent's Appeals Office pursuant to
On March 13, 2003, petitioner and petitioner's witness Scott Cousland attended a
On April 16, 2003, respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions(s) Under
1) Paying income tax No legal law statute/code available for findings
2) frivolous filings & penalties not valid
3) Assessment cannot be made by IRS/self assessment only
4) IRS Tax hearing determination/
5) Numerous issues pertaining to invalid procedures/findings based on NO LAW to collect taxes.
Unconstitutional.
On September 25, 2003, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to
Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 17, 2004.
Discussion
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid the expense of unnecessary trials.
In the instant case, the undisputed facts set forth in respondent's motion, declarations in support of the motion, and attached exhibits establish that the Appeals Office properly verified that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were followed. Settlement Officer Lawler had had no prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax liabilities before the
Because petitioner had received a statutory notice of deficiency, petitioner was precluded from challenging the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability at the hearing. Petitioner failed at the hearing and in her petition to raise a spousal defense, make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent's intended collection action, or offer an alternative means of collection. Consequently, the aforementioned issues are deemed to be conceded.
Petitioner has failed to set forth any grounds on which we could find that the Appeals Office erred in its determination that respondent could properly proceed with collection of petitioner's 1996 tax liabilities. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to summary judgment.
(a) Tax Court Proceedings. --
(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc. --
whenever it appears to the Tax Court that --
(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or
maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is
frivolous or groundless, or
(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue
available administrative remedies, the Tax Court, in
its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the
United States a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000.
Petitioner appears to have instituted or maintained the instant case primarily as a protest against the Federal income tax. See, e.g.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
1. We are not called on to decide whether the return prepared by respondent met the requirements of a substitute return under
2. The assessed tax liability included a deficiency of $ 31,089, a
3. The transcript stated that the balance due was $ 6,012,633.33. The actual assessed amount was $ 60,126.33.↩
4.
A decision shall thereafter be rendered if the pleadings,
answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any
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.↩
5. SEC. 6330 NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING BEFORE LEVY.
a) Requirement of Notice Before Levy. --
(1) In general. -- No levy may be made on any property or
right to property of any person unless the Secretary has
notified such person in writing of their right to a hearing
under this section before such levy is made. * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Right to Fair Hearing. --
(1) In general. -- If the person requests a hearing * * *,
such hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue Service
Office of Appeals.↩
6.
Requirement of investigation. -- The appeals officer shall at
the hearing obtain verification from the Secretary that the
requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure
have been met.↩
7.
(b) Underlying liability. -- The person may also raise at
the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the
underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person did
not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax
liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
such tax liability.↩
Glenn Crain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 737 F.2d 1417 ( 1984 )
United States v. Ruth Studley , 783 F.2d 934 ( 1986 )
Nestor v. Comm'r , 83 T.C.M. 4364 ( 2002 )
Craig v. Comm'r , 119 T.C. 252 ( 2002 )
Jacklin v. Commissioner , 79 T.C. 340 ( 1982 )
Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner , 90 T.C. 678 ( 1988 )
Dahlstrom v. Commissioner , 85 T.C. 812 ( 1985 )