DocketNumber: Docket No. 6379-12L.
Citation Numbers: 104 T.C.M. 713, 2012 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 340, 2012 T.C. Memo. 337
Judges: GUSTAFSON
Filed Date: 12/4/2012
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
P owed Federal income tax liabilities for tax years 2004, 2005, and 2006. R issued to P a notice of proposed levy to collect those unpaid liabilities. P requested a collection due process hearing before IRS Appeals pursuant to
GUSTAFSON,
The Commissioner's motion establishes the following facts, which Mr. Sullivan did not dispute.
Mr. Sullivan's tax liabilities for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 were redetermined in three consolidated deficiency cases before this Court,
On Mr. Sullivan's Form 12153, he checked boxes indicating that he was requesting both an installment agreement and an offer-in-compromise. In the space for the "Reason" for his request, he wrote "See Attached", and to the Form 12153 he attached four pages2 that consisted of 16 numbered paragraphs and additional matter. His attachment stated as follows: *340 1. I hereby request collection alternatives including Offer in Compromise (OIC), payment schedule, CNC (Currently Not Collectible), hardship, etc. I also request subordination discharge and withdrawal of any liens,3*348 if appropriate pursuant to § 2. I hereby request a face-to-face hearing as I have raised relevant issues as listed herein. I will bring with me appropriate forms. I have relevant *343 information to be considered for collection alternatives. I hereby request a reconsideration of the deficiency if I have not previously had the opportunity to do so.4 I will furnish you with your completed forms and file what the law requires. 3. Collection actions are inappropriate. The administrative record is invalid and incomplete. Procedural defects by Internal Revenue Service and irregularities may exist, such as issuing a levy to my bank before I have had a CDP Hearing. 4. Collections would be intrusive and place an undue hardship on me. 5. I also request proof of verification from the Secretary that all applicable law and administrative procedures have been met pursuant to *341 6. I have not neglected or refused to pay a tax liability.5 7. Please send me copies of the Form 17-A, the Summary Record of Assessment, Form 23-C or replacement form, the RACS Report and my form 4340, "Certificate of Assessment and Payments", etc. Pursuant to 8. I hereby notify the Appeals Division of my intention to make an audio recording of the hearing pursuant to 9. I hereby withdraw any Constitutional, moral, political, religious or conscientious arguments that I have heretofore made, although I am not aware of any. Further, I also withdraw any legal positions which are classified and published by the IRS as "frivolous or groundless", if any. This includes any arguments that the courts have determined are frivolous or groundless, or published on the IRS website. 10. The proposed levy/lien actions are not appropriate based on the reasons to be presented at the hearing. The requirements of the applicable law or administrative procedures have not been met and the actions taken were not appropriate under the circumstances. The Revenue Officer has not followed all legal and procedural requirements *345 making the proposed actions inappropriate under the circumstances. *342 11. The proposed collection action or levy/lien action does not balance with the needs for the Service to collect the tax and, considering the circumstances, it is an intrusive action and more intrusive than necessary, by 12. Taxpayer has many reasons and justifications for an in-person conference. These include tape recording, opportunity to present evidence, a chance to show my books and records and explain them at the same time, plus the effect of personal presentation. 13. I have tried to explain my position as clearly as possible. However if the appeals officer does not understand my position, needs more information or has any questions, he/she can contact me in writing. I can explain in more detail my exact position if I am informed where this additional information is needed. 14. I hereby request a photocopy of the record of assessment with the requirements of 15. I hereby request a verification of accuracy of the tax liability, as required in IRM part 5-collection process; Chapter 13; section2; #2.3 item 21:5.13.2.2.3 (03-26-1999). 16. Verification of the Accuracy of the Tax Liability: CQMS Standard: Was the accuracy of the tax liability verified when required? Definition of the tax liability initiative: Was the accuracy of the tax liability verified when seizure action was taken if after July 22, 1998, or at anytime during the case when a taxpayer questioned the accuracy of the stated balance due or the underlying liability? Examples might include possible unposted payments, taxes discharged in bankruptcy, substitute for return / *343 To meet this CQMS standard, on all seizures occurring after July 22, 1998, the Revenue Officer must document in the case history that the accuracy of the tax liability has been verified. Further, If the research concludes that the recorded liability was accurate, was an explanation provided to the taxpayer? If the liability was determined to be in error, was action initiated to adjust the liability to the proper amount owed? I request proof of accuracy of the tax liability and the documentation of the research of said proof. I request documentation of the case history that the accuracy of the tax liability has been verified.
By letter of October 17, 2011, Settlement Officer Patty Jensen of the IRS Office of Appeals informed Mr. Sullivan: I have scheduled a telephone conference call for you For me to consider alternative collection methods such as an installment agreement or offer in compromise, you must provide any items listed below. In addition, *349 you must have filed all federal tax returns required to be filed. * * * * * * * The items to be provided are: > Signed tax return(s) for the following tax periods. Our records indicate they have not been filed: Type of Tax: Period or Periods: > A current completed signed and dated Collection Information Statement Form 433-A for individuals with complete supporting documentation. > Complete copies of all pages for your personal bank statements from June 1, 2011 thru present. > Current wage statements showing year-to-date earnings. > Current investment statements. > To consider collection alternatives we will also need a current fee based professional appraisal from a disinterested third party for all real estate property owned. > Please provide a current mortgage statement showing the principal owed and the amount of your monthly payments. > You have stated on your Form 12153 a collection alternative that you are seeking is an installment agreement. Please state the amount of your monthly payment and the frequency. Be advised that any offer proposal will be analyzed as to assets, income as well as dissipated *345 assets. Hence *350 the above aforementioned request for detailed information so as to facilitate the consideration of collection alternatives. > You have stated on your Form 12153 a collection alternative that you are seeking is an offer in compromise. Please provide Form 656 (Revision 03/2009) stating the amount and terms of the offer in compromise along with how you are going to fund the offer. Also provide the applicable fees and payments. Please send me the items listed or checked above within 14 days from the date of this letter [i.e., by October 31, 2011]. I cannot consider collection alternatives at your conference nor can I consider alternatives during the hearing process without the information requested above. * * *
Mr. Sullivan made no reply by the October 31 deadline.6*353 *351 Rather, on November 7, 2011, Mr. Sullivan mailed a reply to Appeals, in which he stated: *346 Thank you for your letter dated October 17, 2011 granting me a CDP hearing on the tax years shown above. I am unable to complete all the necessary paperwork by the date you have given. I do intend to complete what is required, however I need more time. * * * I do not wish to have a telephone hearing. I want a face-to-face hearing on the issues I qualify for. * * * Please schedule the hearing and notify me of the date, time, and place as I have met the requirements set by Congress for the hearing. * * * * * * * * * * * * * I am asking for a face-to-face hearing on following non-frivolous grounds: (1) Collection Alternatives (2) Offer in compromise (3) Payment Schedule (4) Possible Procedural Irregularities, for example has the amount of the assessment been verified and have all payments been posted to my account. (5) NCC (Not Currently Collectible) (8) [sic] Challenge the appropriateness of the collection action. The IRS code is very complex and difficult and I am trying to do my best.7*354 *355 *347 The U.S. Congress did not require the documents form 433-A and 1040 to be given to you before the hearing. Those documents *352 can be presented at the face-to-face hearing for point-by-point discussion. * * * * * * * I would like a copy of all information, documentation and administrative records you have on me before the CDP Hearing. Please send me Form 4340 with the transcripts and certificate. This is necessary for my CDPH. *348 I will bring a tape recorder and/or court reporter, a representative and witnesses to my face to face hearing. Please give me 30 days written notice of the date, time and place of my face to face hearing.
Consistent with his November 7 letter, Mr. Sullivan did not telephone Appeals on November 10, 2011, to conduct the telephone hearing that Appeals had scheduled for that date. On that November 10 date—before receiving Mr. Sullivan's November 7 letter—Settlement Officer Jensen sent Mr. Sullivan a letter that stated as follows: I sent you a letter dated October 17, 2011 offering you a telephonic Collection Due Process conference. The conference was scheduled for November 10, 2011 at 11 am EST. You did not call at the scheduled time and you had not called to indicate that this date and/or time was not convenient. The conference letter also asked that you send me the information I needed to consider the issues you raised in your request for a hearing. • I never received the information from you. Please be advised that we will make a determination in the Collection Due Process hearing you requested by reviewing the Collection administrative file and whatever information you have already provided. We will promptly issue you a determination and/or decision letter with our findings. I look forward to hearing from you. If you have questions, please call me at the telephone number shown above.
Mr. Sullivan did not make any response nor provide any information by November 24, nor at any other time. He now explains that he was waiting to hear from Ms. Jensen in response to his November 7, 2011, letter to tell him when he was to submit his paperwork by. Petitioner never did hear back from Ms. Jensen regarding this burning question in his mind, until he received the Notice of Determination.
On January 30, 2012, after waiting an additional two months but having heard no more from Mr. Sullivan, Appeals issued a "Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under *350 The determination of Appeals is that the issuance of the Notice of Intent to Levy was appropriate and is sustained. The IRS may proceed with enforced collection action. The taxpayer did not call for the scheduled hearing or submit the requested financial information to consider a collection alternative.
Mr. Sullivan filed with this Court a petition dated February 21, 2012, which was not received until March 7, 2012. The postmark on the mailing envelope is illegible, but we assume it was timely mailed,
On June 28, 2012, the IRS filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it asserts: The Settlement Officer properly determined that petitioner was not eligible for collection alternatives because petitioner did not provide any financial information to the Settlement Officer and therefore, there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining the collection action. Petitioner is willing to provide any documentation requested as long a[s] he is given a date to have it submitted by that is reasonable. It is unreasonable for a poor working man to stop working just to fill out a bunch of *351 paperwork that he doesn't understand and then to have to bother his friends to explain it to him, all within fourteen days.
Under
If a taxpayer fails to pay any Federal income tax liability after notice and demand,
At the CDP hearing, Appeals must make a determination whether the proposed collection action may proceed. In the case of a notice of levy, the procedures for the *360 agency-level CDP hearing before Appeals are set forth in
First, Appeals must verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met by IRS personnel.
Second, the taxpayer may "raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including" challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action and offers of collection alternatives.
Additionally, the taxpayer may contest the existence and amount of the underlying tax liability, but only if he did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have a prior opportunity to dispute the tax liability.
When Appeals issues its determination, the taxpayer may "appeal such determination to the Tax Court" pursuant to
In order to determine whether a taxpayer ought to be granted an offer-in-compromise (based on doubt as to collectibility), ought to be granted an installment agreement, or whether the taxpayer's account ought to be placed in CNC status,9 Appeals must of course have information that enables it to evaluate the taxpayer's financial situation. As we have held, it is not an abuse of discretion for Appeals to reject collection alternatives and sustain the proposed collection action on the basis of a taxpayer's failure to submit requested financial information.
Mr. Sullivan contends that he would have produced the information but that he needed and asked for more time, which Appeals unreasonably denied him. It is true that "an appeals officer's unreasonable denial of a request for more time to submit that [financial information] evidence would * * * be an abuse of discretion",
For the earliest year at issue here (2004), Mr. Sullivan's income tax was due no later than April 2005—more than six years before his CDP hearing. His *358 liabilities were adjudicated; he certainly owed taxes identified in the levy notice; and as of November 2011 they were long overdue. It was the IRS's responsibility to collect those taxes, and the IRS was duly fulfilling that responsibility when it served Mr. Sullivan with the levy notice at issue here. The CDP request was Mr. Sullivan's statutorily granted occasion to stay that process in order to attempt to show the agency that it should show forbearance in the collection of his determined, overdue liabilities. However, not to the taxpayer but to the Secretary of the Treasury *367 is given the duty to "prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of" the
In light of the foregoing, the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment will be granted.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect at all relevant times (codified in 26 U.S.C. and referred to herein as "the Code"), and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Mr. Sullivan's attachment presented selected and lightly edited paragraphs from among the 23 "boilerplate items" in the CDP request at issue in
3. The collection notices at issue are notices of proposed
4. In fact, Mr. Sullivan had an opportunity to challenge the deficiencies in his prior deficiency cases, and he now states that he does not dispute the liabilities.↩
5. The record shows that the liabilities remained unpaid after notice and demand, and Mr. Sullivan does not now contend otherwise.↩
6. In his response to the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, Mr. Sullivan states for the first time that he "
7. The Internal Revenue Code may well be, in many respects, difficult and complex. However, Mr. Sullivan's tax liability has been resolved and is not in dispute; he has not shown any complexity that would be pertinent here; and his earnest-sounding plea that the Code is "complex and difficult and I am trying to do my best" is more boilerplate used by him,
8. Part 8.22.5.6.1.1(6) of the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM"), effective March 29, 2012, characterizes CNC status as being not a collection alternative but instead a "challenge to the appropriateness of collection action under
9. IRM pt. 8.22.5.6.1.1(6) (Mar. 29, 2012) ("Appeals may not condition a face-to-face conference on receipt of financial information in a case in which the taxpayer specifically asks to have his/her account placed in CNC status") was promulgated after Mr. Sullivan's agency-level CDP hearing and was therefore not in effect as of the time of that hearing. Respondent's counsel has stated that the Office of Chief Counsel is reviewing this IRM provision.↩
10. Strictly speaking, Mr. Sullivan's letter of November 7, 2011, is literally correct in stating that "Congress did not require the documents form 433-A and 1040 to be given to you before the hearing"; but his point overlooks the fact that Congress authorized the agency to establish the CDP procedures. When Mr. Sullivan argues that "[t]hose documents can be presented at the face-to-face hearing for point-by-point discussion", he imagines a procedure that would prevent Appeals from evaluating the taxpayer's situation in preparation for the hearing. In fact,