Opinion
4058-22L
10-02-2023
ELTON DEE DYE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Richard T. Morrison Judge
We grant respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January 19, 2023 (Doc. 10).
Background
For tax years 2014 and 2016, petitioner failed to file tax returns.
Respondent determined petitioner's tax liabilities for 2014 and 2016 through the preparation of substitutes for return that accorded petitioner married-filing-separately status. Respondent mailed petitioner notices of deficiency for 2014 and 2016 but petitioner did not file a Tax Court petition for redetermination of the deficiencies.
On August 16, 2021, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of intent to levy regarding petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for tax years 2014 and 2016. The notice gave petitioner a right to a collection due process hearing with the Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals).
On August 20, 2021, petitioner mailed to respondent a request for a collection due process hearing.
On January 4, 2022, respondent issued a notice of determination sustaining the levy for tax years 2014 and 2016.
On February 7, 2022, the Petition was filed (Doc. 1). The petition contends that petitioner is entitled to innocent spouse relief.
On January 19, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Discussion
During the collection due process hearing, petitioner requested innocent spouse relief. However, only an individual who has made a joint return may elect such relief. § 6015(a) ; Treas. Reg. § 1.6015-1(a), (h)(5); see also § 6013; Treas. Reg. § 1.6013-1(a)(2). Petitioner did not file joint returns with his wife for 2014 and 2016. Therefore, Appeals did not err in refusing to grant petitioner innocent-spouse relief.
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Innocent-spouse relief is the only assignment of error raised in the petition that related to matters addressed at the collection due process hearing. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 112-114 (2007).
We conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Court should sustain the notice of determination. We therefore grant respondent's motion for summary judgment and sustain the notice of determination. Rule 121(a). Granting the motion is also justified by petitioner's failure to respond to the motion as required by the Court. Rule 123(a).
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that respondent's January 19, 2023 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that the determinations set forth in the "Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRS Sections 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code" issued to petitioner on January 4, 2022, are sustained.