Opinion
19588-22L
10-10-2023
FRANK M. GRILLO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Jennifer E. Siegel, Special Trial Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Mootness filed February 2, 2023, as supplemented August 9, 2023. Respondent asserts that so much of the case as pertains to a proposed levy for petitioner's taxable year 2005 is moot. Respondent also asserts that so much of the case as pertains to both a proposed levy and a lien filing for petitioner's taxable year 2016 is moot. Petitioner objects.
Petitioner commenced this case in response to a notice of determination sustaining proposed levies to satisfy his federal income tax liabilities (liabilities) for 2005, 2010, and 2016, and notices of federal tax lien filing issued with respect to his liabilities for 2005 and 2010. The relevant facts can be summarized as follows: after a collection due process hearing was held in 2018 but before respondent issued the notice of determination in 2022, petitioner's real property in Colorado was sold in foreclosure and a portion of the proceeds turned over to the Internal Revenue Service in satisfaction of the liabilities that had been the subject of the hearing. The proceeds satisfied all of petitioner's liabilities for 2005 and 2016, and part of the liability for 2010.
The parties agree that the Court has jurisdiction over so much of the case as pertains to (1) petitioner's taxable year 2010 because he still has a liability with respect to that year, and (2) the notice of federal tax lien filing with respect to petitioner's taxable year 2005 because the lien has not been released or withdrawn.
In his objection to respondent's motion, petitioner acknowledges that his liabilities for 2005 and 2016 have been paid. He argues, however, that the "federal tax liens were improperly filed against Petitioner and attached to the real estate at issue" and thus "there is still a controversy." Although it may have been an abuse of respondent's discretion to sustain the proposed levies and the notices of lien filing given the satisfaction of petitioner's liabilities for 2005 and 2016 prior to the issuance of the notice of determination, it does not change the fact that respondent's motion as supplemented should be granted.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. In a collection case, once the Commissioner concedes that there is no unpaid liability for a given period left to be collected, the collection proceeding generally is moot with respect to that period. See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 7 (2006). Moreover, we do not have jurisdiction in a collection case to determine an overpayment, which is essentially what petitioner is asking for with respect to the now-satisfied levies for 2005 and 2016. See Greene-Thapedi, 126 T.C. at 8-12; McLane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-149, aff'd 24 F.4th 316 (4th Cir. 2022). Given this, and upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Mootness as supplemented is granted, and so much of this case as pertains to petitioner's taxable year 2016, and the proposed levy with respect to his taxable year 2005, is dismissed on the ground of mootness.