DocketNumber: Docket No. 25651-13L
Citation Numbers: 2016 T.C. Memo. 227, 112 T.C.M. 663, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 225
Filed Date: 12/14/2016
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
Decision will be entered for respondent.
VASQUEZ,
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are incorporated by this reference. At the time petitioner timely filed his petition, he resided in Montevideo, Uruguay.
Petitioner filed his Federal income tax return for 2011 on June 15, 2012. Petitioner reported a tax liability of $14,844. However, petitioner made a math error on his return. Consequently, respondent determined an additional math error liability of $6,109.52.2
*229 Respondent*226 assessed petitioner's income tax liability for 2011 on July 16, 2012. The assessment of $20,953.52 included the tax reported by petitioner and the math error assessment.
On July 16, 2012, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of balance due for 2011. On August 20, 2012, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice CP 504, Notice of Intent to Levy. On November 5, 2012, respondent mailed to petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. On November 15, 2012, respondent mailed to petitioner a Letter 3172, Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under
Petitioner timely requested collection due process (CDP) hearings in response to the lien and levy notices. In his hearing requests petitioner alleged, among other things, that the filing of the notice of Federal tax lien was "premature or otherwise not in accordance with the Services [sic] administrative procedures". Petitioner also stated that he had not otherwise had an opportunity to dispute the tax liability and that he was challenging the appropriateness of the tax liability and the intended method of collection. Both cases were assigned to Settlement Officer*227 Joe M. Breazeale, who conducted a consolidated CDP hearing.
During the CDP hearing petitioner abandoned many of the arguments in his CDP request, and he did not propose collection alternatives. He did, however, *230 state in a letter that he disputed the "[a]dministrative procedures followed in the filing of * * * liens and/or levy's [sic]".
Settlement Officer Breazeale responded with a letter stating that if petitioner disputed his liability or method of collection, he needed to provide more specific information or the basis for his dispute. Settlement Officer Breazeale also stated that if petitioner wanted him to consider a collection alternative, petitioner had to provide documents and information, including (1) verification of what happened to a withdrawal of $1,373,000 from his IRA; (2) verification that his estimated tax payments were paid and current; (3) a signed copy of his 2007 return and proof that his 2012 return had been filed; (4) a Form 433A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, with supporting documentation; and (5) a Form 433B, Collection Information Statement for Businesses, with supporting documentation. Settlement Officer Breazeale set a deadline*228 of July 15, 2013, for petitioner to provide the requested information. Settlement Officer Breazeale never received the requested information.
Settlement Officer Breazeale recommended sustaining the lien and levy and prepared the notice of determination.3 Respondent issued the notice of *231 determination on September 30, 2013, sustaining the lien and levy. Petitioner timely petitioned the Court for review.
Before trial, counsel for respondent provided petitioner Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, for the tax years 2007 through 2013. Petitioner had not requested records of assessment during his CDP hearing.
If the taxpayer requests a hearing in response to either a notice of Federal tax lien filing or a notice of intent to levy, he may raise at the hearing any relevant issue as to the propriety of the proposed collection action, such as spousal defenses, challenges to the collection action, and offers of collection alternatives.
The Appeals officer must make a determination about whether to uphold the collection action, taking into consideration: (1) verification that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met, (2) relevant issues raised at the hearing, and (3) whether any proposed collection action balances*230 the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's *233 legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
A taxpayer may petition the Court under
In his petition and on brief petitioner sets forth several arguments that the settlement officer did not properly verify that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure were met. We address each of petitioner's arguments in turn.
Petitioner first argues that the settlement officer should have found that the entire assessment for 2011 was invalid because it was untimely. Petitioner cites *234
Petitioner filed his 2011 return on June 15, 2012. Petitioner argues*231 that the assessment was made on November 20, 2015, the date appearing on the signed Form 4340 he received from respondent's counsel. If petitioner is correct, then the assessment would have been made over three years after the return was filed. Respondent, however, argues that assessment was made on July 16, 2012, the date of assessment shown on the Form 4340. We agree with respondent.
Regulations state that an assessment of Federal tax is made by an assessment officer's signing the summary record of assessment.
The Form 4340 is simply a literal transcript, generated on a specific date, containing tax data from an IRS master file associated with a particular taxpayer.
Petitioner has not shown any irregularity in respondent's assessment procedures that raises a question regarding the validity of the 2011 assessment as reflected on the Form 4340. Therefore, we rely on the Form 4340 and we find that the assessment for petitioner's 2011 taxable year was made on July 16, 2012. Because the assessment occurred just over a month after petitioner's return was filed, we find that the assessment was timely and within the three-year period of limitations provided by
Petitioner's next argument is that notice and demand for payment was not sent to him as required under
Proof that notice and demand was sent to a taxpayer's last known address is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
*237 The Form 4340 for the year at issue shows that notice and demand was issued to petitioner on July 16, 2012.5 Petitioner has failed to present any credible evidence that the notice and demand was not issued as reflected on the Form 4340, and he has failed to show error or irregularity in the Form 4340. Therefore, we presume that the Form 4340 is correct and hold that notice and demand was properly issued to petitioner on July 16, 2012, which is within 60 days of assessment.
Petitioner's final argument is that collection actions cannot proceed because petitioner was improperly denied records of assessment he allegedly requested.
In support of his argument, petitioner cites
*238 When a taxpayer requests a copy of the record of assessment under
We find that petitioner was not improperly denied his records*235 of assessment. First, there is no evidence in the record showing petitioner even requested records of assessment during his CDP hearing. Second, respondent furnished petitioner *239 Forms 4340 containing all of the pertinent information before trial. While those forms were furnished by respondent only after Settlement Officer Breazeale concluded petitioner's hearing and Appeals made its determination, we find no error. We have previously held that no purpose would be served by remanding a case to Appeals in order to have the Appeals officer provide the taxpayer with a second copy of the taxpayer's Form 4340 when the Appeals officer had not provided the taxpayer with a copy during his CDP hearing but the Commissioner provided him with one after the hearing and before trial of the case.
We also hold that respondent's determination to proceed with collection for 2011 was not an abuse of discretion, and we sustain the filing of the notice of Federal tax lien and the proposed levy.
In reaching our holding, we have considered all arguments made, and to the extent not mentioned, we consider them irrelevant, moot, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.↩
2.
3. Before preparing the notice of determination, Settlement Officer Breazeale reviewed all the information available to him and concluded that (1) all requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure were met, (2) issues raised by petitioner were considered, and (3) the collection action balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's concern that the collection be no more intrusive than necessary.↩
4.
5. Specifically, the Form 4340 shows that the IRS sent petitioner a notice of balance due. We have previously held that a notice of balance due constitutes a notice and demand for payment under
Murphy v. Commissioner of IRS , 469 F.3d 27 ( 2006 )
March v. Internal Revenue Service , 335 F.3d 1186 ( 2003 )
Thomas W. Roberts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 329 F.3d 1224 ( 2003 )
United States v. John A. Chila , 871 F.2d 1015 ( 1989 )
Bernice M. Gentry Charles F. Gentry v. United States , 962 F.2d 555 ( 1992 )
Irwin Koff Darline Ruth Koff v. United States , 3 F.3d 1297 ( 1993 )
Sego v. Commissioner , 114 T.C. 604 ( 2000 )
Nestor v. Comm'r , 83 T.C.M. 4364 ( 2002 )
Craig v. Comm'r , 119 T.C. 252 ( 2002 )
Goza v. Commissioner , 114 T.C. 176 ( 2000 )