DocketNumber: Docket No. 13062-14L.
Citation Numbers: 2016 T.C. Memo. 88, 111 T.C.M. 1397, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 85
Filed Date: 5/3/2016
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
LAUBER,
The following facts are derived from the parties' pleadings and motions, including the attached affidavits and exhibits.
During 1996 and 1997 contracting officers at the General Services Administration (GSA) determined that petitioner had been overpaid on Government contracts and demanded that he pay restitution. Petitioner alleges that the GSA committed errors in making2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 85">*86 its determination.2 The GSA, through the Department of Justice, notified the IRS that petitioner owed "a past-due legally enforceable debt," *90
Petitioner timely filed his Federal income tax return for 2011 showing an overpayment of $1,745. Rather than refunding this sum to petitioner, the IRS used it to offset in part his GSA debt. On January 28, 2013, petitioner filed an amended return for 2011, reporting an additional tax liability of $550; he remitted no payment with this amended return. The IRS accepted petitioner's amended return and assessed the additional2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 85">*87 tax shown thereon plus applicable penalties and interest. Because his original overpayment had already been applied to reduce the GSA debt, the tax liability reported on his amended return gave rise to a balance due.
In an effort to collect this unpaid tax liability, the IRS in September 2013 issued petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. Petitioner timely requested a CDP hearing, stating that he "did not owe all or part of the taxes." He did not seek a collection alternative and did not allege inability to pay the balance due. A settlement officer from the IRS Appeals Office (SO1) was assigned to his case.
On February 4, 2014, petitioner called SO1 and asked for a face-to-face hearing; she informed him that he needed to make this request in writing. He also asked that she provide him a signed copy of the document authorizing the offset of *91 his 2011 overpayment; she replied that she could not obtain this document and suggested that he might wish to file a Freedom of Information Act request. Petitioner did not dispute the tax shown as due on his amended return but insisted that the GSA debt was invalid because of official misconduct.
SO1 determined2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 85">*88 that she had no authority to reverse the offset of petitioner's original overpayment because that offset was completed before petitioner's amended return was filed. On February 5, 2014, she sent petitioner a letter: (1) proposing a telephone CDP hearing on March 20; (2) reminding petitioner to file a written request for a face-to-face hearing if he wished one; and (3) asking petitioner to supply a completed Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, if he desired a collection alternative. In this letter, SO1 offered an installment agreement under which petitioner would make monthly payments of $25. (Petitioner never responded to this offer.)
On February 25, petitioner called SO1, repeated his request for a copy of the document authorizing the offset, and asked that his CDP hearing be reassigned to another settlement officer. Two days letter, another settlement officer (SO2) sent petitioner a letter stating that: (1) the case had been reassigned to her; (2) she could not reverse the offset because the amended return was received after the *92 offset occurred; and (3) the telephone CDP hearing was still scheduled for March 20. On March 10,2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 85">*89 petitioner sent SO2 a facsimile reiterating his request for a face-to-face hearing.
SO2 called petitioner on March 20 for the scheduled telephone hearing. He repeated his assertions that the GSA debt was invalid and asked SO2 to reschedule the hearing so she could consider that claim. SO2 explained that this was not a valid reason for rescheduling the hearing because she had no authority to reconsider the validity of the GSA debt. Petitioner told SO2 that he did not wish to discuss the case further; asked that she issue him a final notice of determination; and ended the call.
Two weeks later SO2 responded to petitioner's request for a face-to-face hearing, asking him to provide within 14 days a list of the issues he wished to discuss. When petitioner failed to respond to this letter, SO2 closed the case and sent him, on May 12, 2014, the notice of determination underlying this case. Petitioner timely sought review in this Court, and on August 6, 2015, respondent moved for summary judgment. On September 8, 2015, petitioner responded to this motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. *93
Summary judgment is intended to expedite2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 85">*90 litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. We may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute concerning any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.
Where (as here) there is no challenge to the amount of a taxpayer's underlying tax liability,32016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 85">*91 we review the IRS determination for abuse of discretion.
In deciding whether the SO abused her discretion in sustaining the notice of intent to levy, we consider whether she: (1) properly verified that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure were met; (2) considered any relevant issues petitioner raised; and (3) determined whether "any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of * * * [petitioner] that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary."
Petitioner does not dispute that the IRS received a proper notice of "a past due legally enforceable debt."
Petitioner repeatedly requested a face-to-face CDP hearing, and SO1 and SO2 reasonably responded to these requests. The regulations provide that a "CDP *96 hearing may, but is not required to, consist of a face-to-face meeting."
SO1 determined that petitioner might be eligible for an installment agreement and actually proposed one. But petitioner never responded to this offer, and he did not request a collection alternative from SO2. A settlement officer does not abuse her discretion by refusing to consider a collection alternative where (as here) the taxpayer fails to respond to an offer or place a counteroffer on the2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 85">*94 table.
1. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. We round all monetary amounts to the nearest dollar.↩
2. The GSA's claim for restitution arose out of petitioner's involvement with SCAT, Inc., his wholly owned corporation. Petitioner's involvement with this entity has been well documented, and he has pursued numerous lawsuits seeking redress against (among others) the GSA, the Small Business Administration, various Department of Justice attorneys, various bankruptcy trustees, and at least one Federal judge.
3. Petitioner did not challenge during the CDP hearing or in the petition his underlying tax liability for 2011. He is thus precluded from disputing that liability here.
Murphy v. Commissioner of IRS , 469 F.3d 27 ( 2006 )
Terry v. U.S. Small Business Administration , 699 F. Supp. 2d 49 ( 2010 )
Terry v. Sparrow , 328 B.R. 450 ( 2005 )
Dixon v. Comm'r , 141 T.C. 173 ( 2013 )
Thompson v. Comm'r , 140 T.C. 173 ( 2013 )