Opinion
22438-19P
04-25-2022
WILLARD J. BELTON & MARTHA-ALEXANDER BELTON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Emin Toro Judge
A petition commencing this passport case was filed on December 20, 2019. On May 6, 2021, petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7). On June 7, 2021, respondent filed a Response to Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13).
Also on June 7, 2021, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) and a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to Petitioners' Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Allegation and as to Taxable Year 2016 (Doc. 10).
On July 1, 2021, at 2:07 p.m., petitioners filed a Reply to Respondent['s] Response to Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16), and, at 2:11 p.m., an Objection to Respondent['s] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Petitioners' Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Allegations and as to Taxable Year 2016 (Doc. 17). Three minutes later, petitioners filed a second Objection to Respondent['s] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Petitioners' Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Allegations and as to Taxable Year 2016 (Doc. 18). Documents 17 and 18 appear to be duplicative.
Also on July 1, 2021, petitioners filed a Supplemental and Amended Petition and Incorporated Memorandum (Doc. 19), and on October 4, 2021, petitioners filed a Second Supplemental and Amended Petition and Incorporated Memorandum (Doc. 22). On November 19, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike Petitioners' Second Supplemental Petition as it Pertains to Petitioners' Claims Regarding a Proposed Levy on their Social Security Benefits (Doc. 23).
On February 7, 2022, this case was assigned to the undersigned judge.
On April 20, 2022, the Court held a conference call with the parties to discuss the status of the case and the pending motions.
As discussed on the call, section 7345(b) defines "seriously delinquent tax debt" as, among other things and subject to certain exceptions, a "tax liability of an individual.. . with respect to which a notice of lien has been filed pursuant to section 6323 ..., or a levy is made pursuant to section 6331." I.R.C. § 7345(b)(1)(C).
The Court is interested in the parties' views on whether the requirements of I.R.C. § 7345(b)(1)(C) have been satisfied in this case, especially with respect to any "levy .. . made pursuant to section 6331." I.R.C. § 7345(b)(1)(C)(ii). Specifically, the Court wishes to have the parties' views on how compliance with I.R.C. § 7345(b)(1)(C) is demonstrated by the record before the Court.
Additionally, as also discussed on the call, the Court is interested in the parties' views on whether the rules protecting certain amounts from levy would be applicable (or not) in this case and the impact (if any) they may have on compliance with I.R.C. § 7345(b)(1)(C)(ii). See, e.g., I.R.C. §§ 6331(h); 6334(a)(9), (d), (f).
Finally, as discussed on the call, with respect to the Court's jurisdiction in passport cases, the Court draws petitioners' attention to the following decisions: Rowen v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 101 (2021), and Reusch v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 289 (2020), vacated 25 F.4th 67 (2d Cir. 2022).
On the call, counsel for respondent informally requested an opportunity to supplement respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment to respond to the topics discussed by the parties and the Court.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioners' second Objection to Respondent['s] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Petitioners' Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Allegations and as to Taxable Year 2016 (Doc. 18) is stricken from the record in this case. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before June 6, 2022, respondent may supplement his Motion for Summary Judgment. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before July 6, 2022, petitioners shall file a response, if any, to respondent's supplement.