DocketNumber： Docket No. 14758-12S L
Filed Date： 1/9/2014
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/20/2020
PURSUANT TO
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
LAUBER,
In this collection due process (CDP) case, petitioner seeks review pursuant to section 6330(d)(1) of the determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) to uphold a notice of intent to levy. Respondent has moved for summary judgment under
Petitioner has offered no rebuttal to the facts respondent outlined. The following uncontroverted facts are therefore based on the petition, 2014 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 3">*4 respondent's motion for summary judgment, and respondent's other filings in this case.
For the years 2007 and 2008 petitioner did not timely file his Federal income tax returns. On October 18, 2010, the IRS prepared a substitute for return for each year and on December 28, 2010, mailed petitioner a notice of deficiency for both tax years. It is unclear from the record whether petitioner received that notice. On November 21, 2011, having received no payment from petitioner, the IRS issued a notice of intent to levy with respect to petitioner's tax liabilities for both years. Petitioner timely submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing.
On March 5, 2012, the IRS mailed petitioner an acknowledgment letter and scheduled a CDP hearing for April 4, 2012. The acknowledgment letter informed petitioner that the IRS at this hearing could "consider whether you owe the amount due." The letter also informed petitioner that, if he sought a collection alternative, he needed to supply financial information to the IRS, including a completed 2014 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 3">*5 Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, and signed tax returns for 2006, 2009, and 2010.
Petitioner provided no documentation and proposed no collection alternative before the scheduled CDP hearing. He failed to participate in that hearing and did not request that it be rescheduled. The IRS then mailed petitioner a "last chance" letter requesting that he submit financial information if he wished the IRS to consider a collection alternative. Petitioner submitted no information and failed to contact the IRS regarding his case. Accordingly, on May 8, 2012, the IRS issued a notice of determination to petitioner sustaining the proposed levy. Petitioner timely sought review in this Court.
On July 19, 2013, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Court ordered petitioner to file a response to this motion by September 20, 2013. The order advised petitioner that "under
The purpose of summary judgment 2014 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 3">*6 is to expedite litigation and avoid costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary trials.
Because petitioner failed to respond to respondent's motion for summary judgment, the Court could enter a decision against him for that reason alone.
Section 6330(d)(1) does not prescribe 2014 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 3">*7 the standard of review that this Court should apply in reviewing an IRS administrative determination in a CDP case. The general parameters for such review are marked out by our precedents. Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is at issue, the Court will review the Commissioner's determination de novo.
In seeking Tax Court review of a notice of determination, the taxpayer can challenge his underlying tax liabilities for the years at issue only if he properly raised such a challenge at his CDP hearing.
Although petitioner had an opportunity to raise questions concerning his underlying tax liabilities at his CDP hearing, he failed to do so because he did not participate in that hearing or request that it be rescheduled. He likewise failed to make any subsequent attempt to contact the IRS or provide the information it had requested. Because petitioner failed to raise his underlying tax liabilities at his CDP hearing, he is precluded from disputing them now. We will therefore review the IRS' determination only for abuse of discretion.
The only question before us is whether the IRS properly sustained a levy to collect petitioner's liabilities. We review the record to determine whether: (1) the Appeals officer properly verified that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met; (2) any issues raised by the taxpayer have merit; and (3) "any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes 2014 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 3">*9 with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary." Sec. 6330(c)(3).
From our review of the record we conclude that the Appeals officer verified that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure were followed and that in sustaining the levy the Appeals officer properly balanced "the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of * * * [petitioner] that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary."
In any event, it is clear that the Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion. Once a taxpayer has been given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing but fails to avail himself of it, the Commissioner may proceed to make a determination based on the case file.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩