Opinion
14062-20SL
09-01-2021
Albert Allen Alicea Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Daniel A. Guy, Jr. Special Trial Judge
This collection review case, brought pursuant to sections 6320 and 6330, is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, with a supporting declaration, filed pursuant to Rule 121. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Although the Court directed petitioner to file a response to respondent's motion, he failed to do so. By failing to respond to respondent's motion, petitioner waived his right to contest it. Rule 121(d); see, e.g., Aguirre v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 324, 327 (2001). We nevertheless have reviewed the record and will grant respondent's motion.
Background
The record, which includes transcripts of petitioner's accounts, shows that petitioner reported, but failed to pay, Federal income taxes for the the taxable years 2012, 2013, and 2014 (years in issue). Petitioner's failure to remit full payment led the IRS to file a lien for the years in issue and petitioner was provided with notice of that action and of his right to an administrative hearing. Petitioner in turn requested an administrative hearing with the Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals Office), asserted that he is a "non-taxpayer", and requested that the lien be discharged. During the course of the administrative hearing that followed, petitioner did not challenge the amount of his underlying tax liabilities for the years in issue, did not submit a proper application for discharge of the lien, nor did he propose a collection alternative.
In a notice of determination dated November 6, 2020, the Appeals Office concluded that the IRS had acted properly in filing the lien in question. Petitioner filed a timely petition for review with the Court. Although petitioner states that he no longer contends that he is a "non-taxpayer", he makes vague references to the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution suggesting that he is not subject to Federal income tax.
Discussion
Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in controversy "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits or declarations, if any, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law." Rule 121(a) and (b). Respondent, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving that no genuine dispute or issue exists as to any material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 554, 559 (2000). Respondent's motion for summary judgment is well founded based on the averments therein and the declaration and exhibits attached thereto.
In rendering an administrative determination in a collection review proceeding under section 6330, respondent's Appeals Office must verify that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were met. Sec. 6330(c)(1). The Appeals Office also must consider any issues raised by the taxpayer, relating to the collection action, including offers of collection alternatives, appropriate spousal defenses, and challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). A taxpayer may challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Finally, the Appeals Office must consider whether the collection action balances the need for efficient collection against the taxpayer's concern that collection be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C).
The Court has jurisdiction to review the administrative determination of the Appeals Office. Sec. 6330(d)(1). If the taxpayer's underlying tax liability is not in dispute, as is the case here, we review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). An abuse of discretion occurs if the Appeals Office exercises its discretion "arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law." Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
As outlined above, petitioner reported but failed to pay Federal income taxes for the years in issue. The record reflects that respondent followed all required procedures in demanding payment and filing the Federal tax lien underlying this action. To the extent that petitioner's vague statements in his petition for review are offered in support of a claim that he is not subject to Federal income tax, that claim is frivolous and groundless. See, e.g., Powers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-229. It appears that petitioner brought this case for no other reason than to delay collection, and the Court will strongly consider imposing a penalty on petitioner under section 6673 should he return to the Court and make similar arguments in a future case.
Petitioner did not offer any information in support of withdrawal or discharge of the lien, nor did he offer a collection alternative. See sec. 6323(j)(1)(B) (Commissioner may withdraw lien if taxpayer enters into an installment agreement under sec. 6159 that will lead to the satisfaction of the liability in full). The record reflects that the Appeals Office properly verified that the requirements of all applicable laws and administrative procedures were met in the processing of petitioner's case and that the filing of the lien balances the Government's need for the efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's concerns that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. In sum, there is no dispute as to a material fact and respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law sustaining the notice of determination upon which this case is based.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed July 15, 2021, is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that respondent's notice of determination concerning collection actions under section(s) 6320 and/or 6330, dated November 6, 2020, upon which this case is based, is sustained.