Opinion
22877-22SL
09-12-2024
TIMOTHY H. LANIER & JUDY DIANE LANIER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge
This I.R.C. section 6330(d) case is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 11, 2024. A hearing was conducted on the motion in Dallas, Texas, on September 11, 2024. Counsel for respondent appeared and argued in support of the motion. Timothy H. Lanier appeared, answered various questions presented to him by the Court, and confirmed that he had not (1) submitted an offer-in-compromise, or (2) proposed an installment agreement to respondent's settlement officer during the administrative hearing that preceded this case.
The undisputed facts offered in support of respondent's motion are easily summarized in a few sentences. Petitioners have outstanding federal income tax liabilities for multiple years (underlying liabilities) because for each of those years, and others, insufficient federal income taxes were withheld. Respondent proposed to collect the underlying liabilities by levy; petitioners proposed the above-referenced collection alternatives (offer-in-compromise and/or installment agreement) but they never actually submitted either for the settlement officer's consideration. Consequently, each petitioner received a separate Notice of Determination, dated September 23, 2022, copies of which are attached to the petition (Notices), sustaining the levy action.
Under the circumstances there is really little for the Court to review. There is no challenge to the existence or the amount of the underlying liabilities; no collection alternatives to the proposed levy were offered during the administrative hearing, and the administrative record, filed June 14, 2024, shows that respondent's settlement officer satisfied the requirements of I.R.C. section 6330(d). Petitioners' have not suggested, much less established otherwise. As we view the matter, the settlement officer's decision to issue the Notices is hardly an abuse of discretion.
Respondent's motion shows that the undisputed facts entitle respondent to decision as a matter of law, see Rule 121, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. That being so, and to reflect the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that respondent may proceed with collection as determined in the Notices.