Opinion
14109-23L
04-30-2024
KAREN E. PITTS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Cary Douglas Pugh Judge.
Petitioner seeks review pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1) of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals) to uphold a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing (lien notice) for tax years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The notice of determination sustained the lien notice because petitioner did not file her 2020 and 2021 federal income tax returns (so she did not qualify for an installment agreement) and because she did not provide evidence to show that her requested relief of lien withdrawal was in the government's best interest or would support the collection of the taxes owed, despite being given opportunities to do so.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On February 20, 2024, respondent filed the administrative record, an accompanying certificate as to its genuineness, and a notice of its filing, as required by Rule 93. On February 22, 2024, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, along with a supporting Declaration asking that we sustain respondent's determination. Petitioner submitted a letter that we received on February 22, 2024, and filed as a Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. Her response stated that she continued to experience hardship and was requesting a payment plan and additional time to pay the taxes owed. We ordered her to file a supplement by March 25, 2024, and set respondent's Motion for hearing at the Court's April 22, 2024, San Francisco, California, trial session. When the case was called from the calendar for hearing on April 22, 2024, petitioner did not appear. Counsel for respondent appeared and was heard.
It appears that the underlying liability is not in issue, so we review Appeals' determination for abuse of discretion. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). We therefore consider whether Appeals abused its discretion in sustaining the lien notice given petitioner's failure to provide evidence to support lien withdrawal and her failure to comply with her tax filing obligations which barred an installment agreement. We consistently have held that it is not an abuse of discretion for Appeals to sustain a collection action where the taxpayer has failed, after being given sufficient opportunities, to supply Appeals with requested information and to come into compliance with her tax return filing obligations. See Bailey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-94, at *10-11 (collecting cases).
In deciding whether an appeals officer abused his discretion in sustaining a collection action we also consider whether he (1) properly verified that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met, (2) considered any relevant issues the taxpayer raised, and (3) considered "whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the [taxpayer] that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary." §§ 6320(c), 6330(c)(3). The record shows no abuse of discretion.
We have reviewed respondent's Motion and the supporting Declaration and exhibits. We will grant respondent's Motion for the reasons stated in the Motion. In the alternative we would grant respondent's Motion on the grounds of petitioner's failure to respond, see Rule 121(d) (final sentence), or we would dismiss the case for failure to properly prosecute in the light of petitioner's failure to comply with our February 26, 2024, Order, and petitioner's failure to appear when the case was called from the calendar on April 22, 2024, see Rule 123(b). For the foregoing reasons and for cause more fully appearing in the record, it is therefore
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 22, 2024, is granted. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that respondent may proceed with the collection action as determined in the notice of determination dated August 1, 2023, upon which this case is based.