Opinion
1971-21L
04-29-2022
RONALD W. DAVENPORT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch, Judge
This case is calendared for trial at the Court's May 23, 2022, Detroit, Michigan trial session. On April 11, 2022, Mr. Davenport filed a motion that he captioned as a "Motion for Order to Require the Respondent [sic] address Formal Discovery." We will refer to it as a motion to compel discovery, and we will deny the motion.
This is a collection proceeding brought by Mr. Davenport in response to a notice of determination issued by the Commissioner. In that notice of determination, the Commissioner sustained a notice of federal tax lien relating to Form 1040 tax liabilities for 2008 and 2013 plus a section 6673(a) penalty relating to 2008. That section 6673(a) penalty was imposed by this Court in a proceeding brought by Mr. Davenport with respect to his 2008 income tax liability. See T. C. Memo 2013-41.
The issue before the Court in a collection proceeding is whether the Commissioner abused his discretion in denying relief sought in an administrative collection proceeding. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). "In reviewing for an abuse of discretion under section 6330(d)(1), generally we consider only arguments, issues, and other matters that were raised at the section 6330 hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of Appeals." Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 308 (2005) (citing Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493, (2002)), aff'd, 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006). In rare instances, our jurisdiction may include the underlying liability. If the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the taxpayer's liability de novo. Sego, 114 T.C. at 610.
Mr. Davenport's discovery is outside the bounds of permissible discovery. The proper scope of discovery under Rule 70, Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure, is that "discovery may concern any matter not privileged and which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending case." Rule 70 (b). None of Mr. Davenport's discovery is directed toward the administrative record or what occurred in the collection proceeding underlying this case. In addition, Mr. Davenport's motion does not establish that he has satisfied the prerequisites for filing a motion to compel in this Court, including the requirement of informal consultation or communication before resorting to formal discovery. See Rule 70(a)(1); Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691, 692 (1974). Because Mr. Davenport's motion is not adequately supported and the discovery he seeks is outside the permissible scope of discovery, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Davenport's motion to compel discovery filed April 11, 2022, is denied.