Opinion
22405-19L
09-21-2023
DENISE CELESS GARRIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson Judge.
Now before the Court in this "collection due process" ("CDP") case based on a notice of Federal tax lien is a motion (Doc. 23), filed July 10, 2023, by petitioner Denise Celess Garris, in which she asks the Court to vacate or revise the stipulated decision (Doc. 22) that the Court entered on February 18, 2022, at the joint request of the parties. The parties have made various filings in connection with this motion (see Docs. 25, 27-29). Two of those are filings by Ms. Garris that we will recharacterize. We will deny the motion.
Rule 162 provides that a motion to vacate a decision "shall be filed within 30 days after the decision has been entered". Ms. Garris's motion was more than a year late. As we stated in Snow v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 413, 419 (2014), "As a general rule, the finality of a decision [under section 7481] is absolute. . . . There are very few exceptions." One exception is where there was a fraud on the court, which Ms. Garris has not alleged. In addition, however, as we observed in Snow, we have "vacated an otherwise final decision in a situation where the Court had never acquired jurisdiction to make a decision." In our order of July 18, 2023 (Doc. 24), we stated that "we cannot eliminate the possibility that there might be a jurisdictional issue in this case" because the supplemental notice of determination (Doc. 20, Ex. A) also refers to a proposed levy, as to which we could not tell whether Ms. Garris had received a CDP hearing and a notice of determination.
In his response to the motion (Doc. 23) and our order (Doc. 24), the Commissioner showed as follows:
For the taxable year 2014, petitioner was issued, on September 12, 2016, a levy notice. In reply to that levy notice, petitioner made a separate request, by way of a Form 12153 sent by certified mail on October 6, 2016, and received on October 13, 2016, for a CDP hearing.... On November 25, 2019, petitioner was issued a separate determination notice that sustained the proposed levy.... Petitioner did
not file a petition as to the determination notice that sustained the proposed levy. [Doc. 25 at 4.]
This explanation, which Ms. Garris has not disputed, answers the jurisdictional question that we raised and satisfies us that in this case the issue of jurisdiction does not alter the finality rules. As a result, the Tax Court is precluded from entertaining an untimely motion to vacate or revise decision.
Consequently, the Tax Court has no authority in this case to review the IRS's subsequent alleged of which Ms. Garris complains. We appreciate that the Commissioner's counsel has looked into the situation and has reported as follows:
The account transcript for the taxable year 2019 indicates a notice of intent to levy was issued on July 7, 2023, and that a notice of lien filing was issued on July 18, 2023. This collection activity occurred apparently because the installment agreement was not recorded by Appeals; such activity was contrary to the limitations within Internal Revenue Code section 6331(k)(2)(C). See also Treas. Reg. § 301.6159-1(f). Respondent's counsel has requested that the assigned Field Collection Revenue Officer withhold further collection activity. [Doc. 28 at 4; footnotes omitted.]
We also appreciate counsel's suggestion to petitioner "that the remedy in this instance is for petitioner to coordinate with the assigned Revenue Officer in order to undertake an updated installment agreement (covering all of the incurred Federal income tax liabilities) along with supporting documentation about petitioner's current ability to pay or to undertake another collection alternative." (Doc. 28 at 4.) To clarify the record in this case, it is
ORDERED that Ms. Garris's filing dated August 24, 2023, which she entitled a "Motion to Modify Order", shall be recharacterized as her reply to the Commissioner's response to her motion, and that Ms. Garris's most recent filing (Doc. 29), which she entitled a "Motion for Reconsideration of Order", shall be recharacterized as her reply to the Commissioner's supplemental response to her motion. Since there is no further action this Court can take in connection with this case, in which the stipulated decision became final long ago, it is further
ORDERED that Ms. Garris's motion (Doc. 23) to vacate or revise the decision is denied.