Opinion
7596-22L
09-19-2024
FESTUS O. OHAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Maurice B. Foley Judge
On April 11, 2024, the Court filed respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 1, 2024, the Court filed petitioner's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On July 12, 2021, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Intent to Seize Your Assets and of Your Right to a Hearing (levy notice) relating to 2017. In a timely filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, dated July 13, 2021, petitioner requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing, stated he could not pay the liability, and requested lien subordination, withdrawal, and discharge.
In a letter dated August 5, 2021, respondent requested that petitioner send a completed Form 433-F, Collection Information Statement, by August 20, 2021, and advised petitioner that his case would be forwarded to Appeals if he failed to respond. On September 9, 2021, after not receiving a response from petitioner, respondent forwarded the case to Appeals. In a letter dated October 8, 2021, respondent notified petitioner that his telephonic CDP hearing was scheduled for November 16, 2021, requested that he submit a completed Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, and informed petitioner that several of his contentions in his CDP hearing request were frivolous positions that would not be discussed.
Petitioner did not attend the scheduled CDP hearing. In a letter dated November 17, 2021, respondent offered petitioner 14 additional days to submit the requested documentation and informed petitioner that if he failed to respond a determination would be made based on the administrative file. Petitioner did not provide the requested documentation and, instead, sent respondent hundreds of incoherent, non-responsive documents and writings.
On March 15, 2022, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRS Sections 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code, sustaining the levy notice. Petitioner, while residing in Alaska, timely filed a Petition with the Court. On October 11, 2022, the Court filed petitioner's First Amended Petition containing frivolous positions. The Court, on May 10, 2023, filed respondent's timely Answer.
Section 6330 provides that during a CDP hearing a taxpayer may raise relevant issues (e.g., spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the proposed collection action, and possible collection alternatives). See I.R.C. § 6330(c)(2)(A). A taxpayer may dispute the underlying liability during the CDP hearing if the taxpayer did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have a prior opportunity to dispute such liability. See I.R.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B). The Court cannot consider issues that were not raised during the CDP hearing. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 114 (2007). Because petitioner failed to appear for his scheduled CDP hearing, the underlying liability is not at issue. Accordingly, we review the Commissioner's administrative determinations for abuse of discretion. See Pough v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 344, 351 (2010); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
Respondent did not abuse his discretion. Petitioner was ineligible for collection alternatives because he did not comply with respondent's requests or provide any of the requested documentation. See McLaine v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 228, 243 (2012); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 4, 13 (2004). The hundreds of documents petitioner provided contained only incoherent ramblings and frivolous statements. The Appeals officer met the requirements of section 6330(c). See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002). Respondent has established that there is no genuine dispute relating to any material fact and that she is entitled to judgment 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). Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 121, summary judgment in favor of respondent is appropriate.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 11, 2024, is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that respondent may proceed with the collection action as determined in the Notice of Determination relating to 2017.