Opinion
34514-21L
09-09-2022
Hasham Ali & Amani A. Saiban, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER & DECISION
Mark V. Holmes, Judge
This case is on the Court's September 12, 2022 trial calendar for San Francisco, California. On July 7, 2022 respondent moved for summary judgment; petitioners sent the Court a letter on August 15, which we treat as their answer to this motion.
These are the key undisputed facts:
• petitioners owe more than $200,000 in assessed income tax for 2013, 2016, and 2017;
• respondent notified them of his intent to collect that tax by levy, and petitioners asked for a collection-due-process (CDP) hearing;
• in their request, petitioners raised only one issue - they wanted an "installment agreement as an alternative collection resolution based upon the taxpayer's financial condition as he currently cannot pay the tax liability in full";
• petitioners never gave the IRS officer conducting their CDP hearing any financial information after she asked them to complete a Form 433-A (the IRS form which collects financial information), they never appeared at the conference; and
• after the IRS officer gave them another two weeks to contact her to submit the Form 433-A and set a new hearing date, they again remained silent.
When the amount of liability is not at issue, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-82 (2000). This means that we look to see if the Commissioner's decision was based on an error of law, rested on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or whether Commissioner ruled irrationally. Antioco v. Commissioner, 105 T.C.M. (CCH) 1234, 1237 (2013).
We routinely hold that an Appeals Officer making a determination at the end of a CDP hearing does not abuse her discretion if she rejects a request for a collection alternative because the taxpayer fails to submit his financial information. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Commissioner, 104 T.C.M. (CCH) 713, 718 (2012). We must reach the same answer here when the Appeals Officer gave petitioners a second chance; we note as well that she even kept the file open for another month. But when petitioners never sent the information, or even contacted her for more time, we cannot see any irrationality or error in her determination.
Petitioners asserted in their petition that they needed "additional time to provide the information on Form 433[-A]." But they don't explain why, and more importantly, they don't explain why they didn't ask the Appeals Officer for more time. They also attached a Form 433-A to their response to this summary-judgment motion. But we review what the Appeals Officer did with what she had before her, not what she might have done if she had different information before her.
We do understand that petitioners seem to have fallen onto very hard times in the years leading to CDP hearing. They are encouraged to contact respondent's counsel for information on how, even at this late date, to submit the Form 433-A to the IRS to have it considered. But we can find no abuse of discretion in the conduct or results of the CDP hearing they were entitled to. It is therefore
ORDERED that respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted. It is also
ORDERED and DECIDED that respondent may proceed with the collection of petitioners' federal income-tax liabilities for the tax years 2013, 2016, and 2017 as described in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated October 15, 2021.