Opinion
14412-23L
08-27-2024
ARTISTIC POLISH & DESIGN, INC., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Jennifer E. Siegel, Special Trial Judge.
This matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 7, 2024. By Order issued May 15, 2024, we directed petitioner to file a response to the motion. To date, nothing has been received, and we could enter a decision against petitioner for that reason alone. See Rule 121(d) We nevertheless consider respondent's motion on its merits. The motion being well-made, we will grant it.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C, in effect at all relevant times, regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Background
Petitioner failed to timely pay its employment tax liabilities for the period ending December 31, 2021. Respondent assessed an addition to tax pursuant to section 6011. Respondent sent the applicable notice and demand, and petitioner failed to remit payment.
On October 7, 2022, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing. In response, petitioner filed a request for a collection review hearing, proposing an installment agreement as a "better resolution to the liability." Although petitioner's representative participated in the hearing, the financial information needed to support the requested installment agreement was not provided to the settlement officer. A Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 was issued to petitioner on August 9, 2023.
In response, petitioner commenced this case, explaining that the company now has all the information requested by the settlement officer. Despite this claim, no information was provided in response to the filing of the Administrative Record on May 2, 2024, or in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment pending before us.
Discussion
Summary judgment serves to "expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials." Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). We may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law on all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Rule 121(a)(2); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).
In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, we construe facts and make inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sundstrand, 98 T.C. at 520. The nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine dispute for trial. Rule 121(d); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
As relevant here, a taxpayer may raise a challenge to the existence or amount of its underlying tax liability in a proceeding such as this one only if the taxpayer "did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability." § 6330(c)(2)(B); Treas. Reg. 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner had a prior opportunity to contest its tax liabilities and failed to raise the underlying liability as an issue. Petitioner is therefore precluded from doing so now. Thompson v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 173, 178 (2013); Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107 (2007). When the underlying liability is not at issue, we review collection determinations for an abuse of discretion. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
Although petitioner indicated interest in an installment agreement in its request for a collection review hearing, petitioner failed to submit the requested financial information. Thus, it was not an abuse of discretion for the Appeals Office to reject petitioner's collection alternative. Giamelli,129 T.C. at 114-115; Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002).
Under these circumstances, we conclude that there is no dispute as to a material fact, and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. It is further ORDERED AND DECIDED that respondent's notice of determination issued August 9, 2023, is sustained.