DocketNumber: Docket No. 24694-14L
Citation Numbers: 2016 T.C. Memo. 94, 111 T.C.M. 1415, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 91
Filed Date: 5/10/2016
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
LAUBER,
The following facts are based on the parties' pleadings and respondent's motion, including the attached affidavits and exhibits.
Petitioner has not filed a Federal income tax return for any year between 2004 and 2013. For the 2009 tax year the IRS prepared a*92 substitute for return (SFR) that met the requirements of
In an effort to collect this outstanding liability, the IRS sent petitioner, in March 2014, final notices of levy and Federal tax lien filing. On April 1, 2014, petitioner timely requested a CDP hearing, asking that the IRS withdraw the NFTL *96 and consider a collection alternative in the form of an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise. Petitioner included an attachment on which he asserted that "[t]he tax liability is not correct." He did not explain the basis for this claim.
Upon receiving petitioner's case, a settlement officer (SO) from the IRS Appeals Office reviewed the administrative file and confirmed that the tax liability for 2009 had been properly assessed and that all other requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure had been met. On July 9, 2014, the SO sent petitioner a letter*93 scheduling a telephone CDP hearing for July 31, 2014. The SO informed petitioner that to be eligible for consideration of a collection alternative, he needed to supply a completed Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, and file delinquent tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. To afford petitioner additional time to submit these documents, his representative requested that the hearing be postponed to August 15, 2014. The SO granted that request.
On August 14, 2014, petitioner submitted an installment agreement proposing to discharge his 2009 tax liability by paying $200 per month. He also submitted a Form 433-A with limited financial information and copies of bank statements that showed only cash deposits and withdrawals. He did not provide *97 the SO with any of the requested tax returns. The SO reviewed this submission in connection with other data about petitioner's financial situation and concluded that the information submitted reflected a "lack of financial transparency."
On August 15, 2014, the SO held a telephone CDP hearing with petitioner's representative; petitioner did not participate in this call. The SO indicated that*94 petitioner was not eligible for a collection alternative because he was delinquent in his Federal tax filing obligations and because his Form 433-A did not include sufficient financial information to permit the IRS to evaluate collection alternatives. Petitioner's representative did not raise any challenge to petitioner's underlying tax liability for 2009; did not dispute the SO's conclusions; and stated that he understood the reason for petitioner's ineligibility. The SO closed the case one month later after receiving no further communications from petitioner's representative.
On September 17, 2014, the IRS issued petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action sustaining the NFTL and the proposed levy. On October 17, 2014, petitioner timely petitioned this Court for review of the notice of determination. His petition appears to seek review of his underlying tax liability for 2009 by asserting that "[t]he IRS does not have all the information attributable to the sale of a property I owned." But he does not dispute receiving *98 the notice of deficiency for 2009. He alleges that he was unable to comply with the SO's information requests because his representative did not sufficiently*95 communicate the relevant deadlines to him.
On July 23, 2015, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. Respondent attempted service on petitioner at a post office box address in Camarillo, California, the address on his petition. On July 28, 2015, the Court ordered petitioner to respond to the motion for summary judgment by August 28, 2015, and served petitioner at his post office box address. This order was returned to the Court as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service.
On September 1, 2015, the Court changed petitioner's address of record to an address on Murray Avenue in Camarillo, California. On September 11, 2015, respondent re-served the motion for summary judgment on petitioner at that address. On September 29, 2015, to ensure that petitioner had sufficient time to respond to the motion for summary judgment, the Court ordered a new deadline of October 21, 2015, for his response. This order advised petitioner that "under
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary trials.
Because petitioner failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment, the Court could enter a decision against him for that reason alone.
Neither
A taxpayer may dispute his underlying tax liability in a CDP case only if he did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have a prior opportunity to contest that liability.
In deciding whether the SO abused his discretion in sustaining the collection actions we consider whether he: (1) properly verified that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met; (2) considered any relevant issues petitioner raised; and (3) considered 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."
This Court has authority to review satisfaction of the verification requirement regardless of whether the taxpayer raised that issue at the CDP hearing.
A taxpayer in a CDP proceeding has the right to request a collection alternative, such as an installment agreement.
The SO initially gave petitioner three weeks to submit delinquent tax*100 returns for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and a Form 433-A to enable the SO to consider collection alternatives. Petitioner's representative requested additional time to submit these documents; the SO granted that request and postponed the CDP hearing for two weeks for this purpose. Although petitioner proposed an installment agreement, he failed to submit the required tax returns, and the financial information in his Form 433-A was substantially incomplete. Having already given petitioner one extension of time (for a total of five weeks) to submit these documents, the SO would not have been required to give petitioner additional time even if he had requested it, which he did not.
We have consistently held that it is not an abuse of discretion for a settlement officer to reject a collection alternative where the taxpayer has failed, after being given sufficient opportunities, to supply the SO with the required financial information.
Petitioner alleges in his petition that he did not provide the SO with the requested information because his representative did not communicate the relevant deadlines to him. When a taxpayer is represented, communications to that representative generally constitute notice to the taxpayer.
To reflect the foregoing,
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 dollar amounts to the nearest dollar.↩
Murphy v. Commissioner of IRS , 469 F.3d 27 ( 2006 )
Sundstrand Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 17 F.3d 965 ( 1994 )
Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner , 98 T.C. 518 ( 1992 )
Goza v. Commissioner , 114 T.C. 176 ( 2000 )