Opinion
5538-22L
04-11-2023
EDWARD O. YODER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Alina I. Marshall Judge
The petition in this collection due process (CDP) case was filed on February 28, 2022, in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRC Sections 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code, dated February 1, 2022 (notice of determination). The notice of determination sustained a proposed levy with respect to petitioner's income tax liability for tax year 2014. In the petition, petitioner does not dispute his underlying liability or assert any abuse of discretion by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals) settlement officer who conducted his CDP hearing. Petitioner contends only that he has no way to pay the liability.
By notice served July 14, 2022, the case was set for trial at the Richmond, Virginia remote trial session commencing on November 14, 2022. On September 15, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with supporting exhibits. On September 22, 2022, the Court ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment by October 20, 2022, warning petitioner in that Order that failure to respond might lead to the Court granting respondent's motion. On October 24, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Continuance of Trial. On October 31, 2022, the Court granted the Motion for Continuance and extended petitioner's time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment to December 2, 2022. There has been no response from petitioner to date.
The motion for summary judgment, as supported by the exhibits, demonstrates that petitioner did not dispute his underlying liability during his CDP hearing. See § 6330(c)(2)(B) (allowing taxpayers to contest their underlying liabilities at CDP hearings in certain circumstances). It also demonstrates that petitioner was seeking collection alternatives but provided none of the financial documents requested to assist the settlement officer with evaluating such alternatives. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(e)(1) (providing that taxpayers "will be expected to provide all relevant information requested by Appeals, including financial statements, for its consideration of the facts and issues involved in the hearing"). Further, it demonstrates that the settlement officer verified that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were satisfied, considered the issues raised by petitioner, and determined that the proposed levy balanced the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the concern that the levy be no more intrusive than necessary. See § 6330(c)(3).
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
As a result of petitioner's failure to respond, there is no indication in the record of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. Thus, decision may be rendered as a matter of law under Rule 121. Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 15, 2022, is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that the determination in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRC Sections 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code, dated February 1, 2022, is sustained in full.