Opinion
15638-21L
07-28-2022
SHADMAN OMMATMOHAMMADI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Cary Douglas Pugh Judge
This case was commenced on July 22, 2021, under sections 6320 and 6330 in response to a notice of determination issued to petitioner on July 13, 2021, concerning a proposed collection action for his Federal income tax liabilities for 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The case was set for trial at the San Francisco, California, trial calendar on May 2, 2022. Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 3, 2022, attaching a Declaration of Elizabeth DeAngelis (SO DeAngelis). Respondent's motion indicated that petitioner objected, and on March 7, 2022, we directed petitioner to file a response by April 4, 2022. On March 31, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Continuance, along with multiple supporting documents, and a Motion to Proceed Remotely. On April 3, 2022, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment, and a Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to respondent's motion for summary judgment. We addressed all of these in an order entered April 6, 2022, striking the case from the calendar and granting petitioner an extension to June 6, 2022, to file his response. We also explained the options for obtaining counsel to assist him and the rules that govern them. On April 25, 2022, we granted petitioner's motion to proceed remotely if trial is necessary and reminded him of the deadline for filing his response to respondent's pending summary judgment motion. To date we have received no response.
We therefore decide respondent's motion on the basis of the record before us. After review of that record we conclude that summary judgment sustaining respondent's determination is appropriate and briefly recite the facts and analysis supporting that conclusion.
Background
Petitioner filed Federal income tax returns for the years in issue but did not pay the total amount he reported as owed on those returns. He also was assessed an additional amount by the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS') Automated Under Reporter Department for 2015. On December 12, 2019, the IRS issued to petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing under IRC 6320 (lien notice), with respect his liabilities for the years in issue.
On January 4, 2020, the IRS timely received from petitioner a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. Petitioner indicated that he was seeking a lien discharge, a lien withdrawal and an offer in compromise and could not pay the balance owed. (As of July 16, 2020, petitioner owed approximately $36,880 for all of the tax periods at issue.)
The case activity record states that SO DeAngelis reviewed the case transcript and responded to petitioner's Form 12153 with a Substantive Contact Letter, dated May 12, 2021, that scheduled a telephonic hearing on June 15, 2021, and requested that petitioner provide, by May 26, 2021, a completed Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, a Form 656, Offer In Compromise, and a Form 12277, if petitioner wished to pursue lien withdrawal. She also advised him that his account had been placed in currently not collectable (CNC) status. The case activity record further notes that petitioner was not current with his filing obligations (as no return was filed for 2018).
In a faxed letter dated May 21, 2021, petitioner requested that the hearing take place by mail. When he did not send the requested information by May 26, 2021, SO DeAngelis wrote a follow up letter on June 15, 2021, giving an additional 14 days to provide the requested information. Petitioner responded by letter faxed June 27, 2021, describing the circumstances leading up to the unpaid liability and explaining why he was unable to pay the liability. He did not challenge the underlying liability in his initial hearing request or in his subsequent correspondence; nor did he provide any information requested. SO DeAngelis noted that the lien appeared to impose no hardship as petitioner stated he owned no assets and had no future employment prospects and his account remained in CNC status. The Notice of Determination followed on July 13, 2021.
Analysis
Rule 121(b) provides in part that after a motion for summary judgment and an opposing response are filed "[a] decision shall thereafter be rendered if the pleadings . . . 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." Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). We are satisfied that, viewing the material facts in the light most favorable to petitioner, for the reasons summarized below, respondent is entitled to a decision sustaining the notice of determination.
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is in issue, the Court reviews the settlement officer's determination de novo. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly in issue, the Court will review the settlement officer's administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). The settlement officer must verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met, consider issues properly raised by the taxpayer, and consider whether the collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. See §§ 6320(b) and 6330(c) (governing the conduct of an administrative hearing requested under section 6320).
Because petitioner did not challenge his underlying tax liabilities we review SO DeAngelis' determination for abuse of discretion. Petitioner failed to provide the requested forms and supporting documentation SO DeAngelis requested. A taxpayer is expected to provide relevant information requested by the settlement officer for consideration of the facts and issues involved in an administrative hearing. Treas. Reg. § 301.6320-1(e)(1). Without the requested forms and supporting documentation, SO DeAngelis did not abuse her discretion when she declined to consider a collection alternative or withdraw the lien. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6320-1(d)(2), Q&A-D8; see also Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 79 (2005) (holding that "[s]ince there was no offer in compromise before [the settlement officer], there was no abuse of discretion in [the settlement officer's] failing to consider an offer in compromise"); Huntress v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-161 (holding that there is no abuse of discretion when the settlement officer rejects collection alternatives where the taxpayer offered none, failed to provide financial information, and was not current with payment obligations); Lance v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-129 (holding that there is no abuse when the taxpayers fail to provide financial information). Just as petitioner gave SO DeAngelis nothing to consider he provided nothing for the Court to consider in response to the pending motion for summary judgment, even after afforded an extension of time.
As to the rest of SO DeAngelis' determination, the record establishes that she (1) verified that the requirements of any applicable law and administrative procedure were followed; (2) considered the issues petitioner raised; and (3) properly balanced the need for the efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
No genuine issues of material fact are in dispute, and no other challenges to the notice of determination on which this case is based have been properly raised. We therefore will grant respondent's motion for summary judgment.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is hereby
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 3, 2022, is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that the determinations set forth in the Notice of Determination for tax years 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, dated July 13, 2021, are sustained.