Opinion
5681-22L
08-25-2023
ROSS D. SNYDER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Maurice B. Foley Judge.
On November 23, 2022, the Court filed respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court, on December 30, 2022, filed petitioner's Notice of Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On June 28, 2021, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Collection Due Process Right to a Hearing relating to 2011, 2012, and 2018. In a timely filed Request for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing dated July 27, 2021, petitioner disputed the underlying liabilities and stated he could not pay the liability due. In addition, he requested collection alternatives (i.e., an installment agreement and an offer in compromise) and lien withdrawal.
In a letter dated October 29, 2021, respondent's settlement officer notified petitioner that his telephonic CDP hearing was scheduled for December 15, 2021. The settlement officer requested that petitioner complete Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement, and Form 656, Offer in Compromise, provide signed copies of tax returns for 2015, 2019, and 2020, submit information about his income and expenses, and make estimated tax payments for the current year. The letter also informed petitioner he was not eligible for lien withdrawal because no lien had been filed.
On December 15, 2021, respondent held the telephonic CDP hearing with petitioner. Petitioner had not filed his tax returns relating to 2015, 2019, and 2020 and did not provide any of the requested information. Respondent granted petitioner an additional fourteen days to send the completed forms and file his prior tax returns. In a fax dated December 29, 2021, petitioner requested an extension and stated he was confused on what returns needed to be filed. On January 3, 2022, respondent denied petitioner's request for additional time to submit the requested forms and informed petitioner that a determination would be made.
On January 21, 2022, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRC Sections 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code sustaining the levy. Petitioner, while residing in Austin, Texas, timely filed a petition with the Court and contended respondent abused his discretion by not allowing any collection alternatives. The Court, on May 6, 2022, 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 § 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 an opportunity to dispute such liability. See § 6330(c)(2)(B). While petitioner disputed the underlying liability in his CDP hearing, he did not raise the issue in his petition to the Court. Any issue not raised in the assignments of error of the petition shall be deemed to be conceded. Rule 331(b)(4); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000). Accordingly, the underlying liability is not at issue, and we review the Commissioner's administrative determinations for abuse of discretion. See Pough v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 344, 351 (2010); Goza, 114 T.C. at 182.
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 required documents and forms. See McLaine v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 228, 243 (2012); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 4, 13 (2004). The Appeals officer met the requirements of section 6330(c). See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183 (2001). Respondent has established that there is no genuine dispute relating to any material fact and that he 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 November 23, 2022, 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 2011, 2012, and 2018.