Opinion
20629-21L
01-23-2023
STEVEN ROY VAN HOOK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Alina I. Marshall, Judge.
On May 6, 2021, respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRC Sections 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (notice of determination) with respect to petitioner's income tax liabilities for tax years 2014-2017 (tax years at issue). On June 7, 2021, petitioner filed the petition commencing this collection due process (CDP) case. He resided in California when the petition was filed.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory 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.
This case was calendared for a standalone remote trial at the session of the Court scheduled to commence on October 31, 2022.
On September 1, 2022, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment (respondent's motion) and a declaration of Nathan C. Johnston in support of motion for summary judgment. On October 16, 2022, petitioner filed a response to respondent's motion (petitioner's response).
On October 17, 2022, the parties filed a first stipulation of facts.
On October 19, 2022, the Court issued an order striking and continuing this case from the Court's standalone remote trial session commencing October 31, 2022, and the undersigned retained jurisdiction.
Background
The following undisputed information is derived from the parties' filings in this case.
For each of the tax years at issue, petitioner timely filed a Form 1040, Individual Income Tax Return. The parties have stipulated that petitioner reported his tax liabilities correctly on those returns. They have also stipulated that he did not pay the balances due.
On September 25, 2019, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing advising petitioner of respondent's intent to levy for the tax years at issue and of petitioner's right to request a CDP hearing. On or about October 8, 2019, petitioner sent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, to respondent. In that form, petitioner requested a CDP hearing regarding the proposed levy and requested a "collection alterative." As the stated reason for his dispute, petitioner wrote that "I am working to address a tax inequity for adjunct professors."
On September 24, 2020, settlement officer (SO) Sandra Martinez, in the Internal Revenue Services' (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Office of Appeals), mailed petitioner a letter scheduling a conference date of October 21, 2020. During the October 21, 2020 conference, SO Martinez explained to petitioner that the IRS had temporarily placed petitioner in a "not collectible" status, to which petitioner stated that he did not want a collection alternative. Petitioner further stated that he wished to dispute his underlying liabilities based on his beliefs that, as an adjunct professor, he was incorrectly categorized by his employers as an employee, rather than an independent contractor, and that current law classifying adjunct professors as employees was unfair to an entire class of workers. In response to petitioner's position, SO Martinez requested that petitioner's case be transferred to another SO. On October 21, 2021, SO Martinez signed a case transfer form, which was approved on January 4, 2021.
Petitioner's case was reassigned to SO James Wong. On February 26, 2021, SO Wong mailed petitioner a letter scheduling a conference date of April 13, 2021. During the April 13, 2021 conference, petitioner reiterated his position that he was incorrectly categorized as an employee rather than an independent contractor and that adjunct professors, on the whole, should be treated as independent contractors. Petitioner did not, however, provide amended returns or any specific evidence demonstrating what his tax liabilities would be for the years in issue if he was classified as an independent contractor. Petitioner also did not provide any evidence that any of his employers wrongly classified him as an employee; rather, petitioner set forth a policy argument regarding the classification of adjunct professors generally.
As stated, on May 6, 2021, respondent issued the notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy. The notice specified that SO Wong had verified that the requirements of any applicable law and administrative procedure had been met, that he had considered the issues raised by petitioner, and that the collection action balanced the need for the efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. Petitioner timely petitioned this Court. In the petition, petitioner did not raise any administrative issues with respect to the determination. Petitioner also did not raise any specific issues with respect to his classification as an employee by any given employer or the calculation of his liabilities. Instead, he continued to raise a general policy argument.
Respondent subsequently filed the motion for summary judgment in which he asked that we sustain the notice of determination. In petitioner's response, petitioner pointed to the impact of certain historical changes in the tax law as the "central case issue." He conceded that the IRS has accurately enforced those changes with respect to him, but argued that those changes have been unfairly detrimental to adjunct educators as a class.
Discussion
Summary adjudication is designed to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Under Rule 121(b), we may grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits or declarations, if any, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law." See Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). In resolving a motion for summary judgment, we view the facts and draw inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985). The nonmoving party, however, may not rest on mere allegations or denials but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. Rule 121(d); see Sundstrand Corp., 98 T.C. at 520. As there is no dispute between the parties as to any material fact, we agree with respondent that summary adjudication is appropriate.
The Court has jurisdiction to review the Appeals Office's determination concerning a proposed levy action when the taxpayer timely petitions for review. § 6330(d)(1). Where the validity of the taxpayer's underlying liability is properly at issue, we review the liability de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). We review the Appeals Office's determinations respecting any nonliability issues for abuse of discretion. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-82 (2000).
Petitioner has conceded that his underlying liabilities were correctly calculated under the law and we consider them no further. Both at the administrative level and before the Court, petitioner has argued only with respect to what he perceives as a fundamental unfairness in the law. We cannot evaluate the law's fairness, however, and must apply it as it is written. See Metzger Trust v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 42, 59-60 (1981), aff'd 693 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1982); see also, e.g., McGuire v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 254, 262 ("we are not a court of equity, and we cannot ignore the law to achieve an equitable end"). It is up to Congress to address questions of fairness and to make any improvements to the law. Metzger Trust, 76 T.C. at 59-60; Cutler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-119, *12.
Petitioner has raised no other issues. He has not alleged in the petition, or in any other filing, that he "challenge[d] the appropriateness of the intended method of collection, offer[ed] an alternative means of collection, or raise[d] a spousal defense to collection as directed under section 6330(c)(2)(A)," or that there has otherwise been an abuse of discretion. Goza, 114 T.C. at 183; see also § 6330(c)(3). "[A]ny issue not raised in the assignments of error [in a petition in a lien or levy action conducted pursuant to section 6320(c) or 6330(d)] shall be deemed to be conceded." Goza, 114 T.C. at 183 (quoting Rule 331(b)(4)). On the basis of the record, we thus conclude that it is appropriate to grant respondent's motion.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion for summary judgment filed September 1, 2022, is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that the notice of determination dated May 6, 2021, upon which this case is based, is sustained.