Opinion
1419-22L
10-20-2023
TEDDY MERCED TEANO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Maurice B. Foley, Judge.
On August 21, 2023, the Court filed respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 22, 2023, the Court ordered petitioner to file an objection on or before September 13, 2023. No objection has been received. 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 December 3, 2019, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 relating to 2017. In a timely filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, dated December 9, 2019, petitioner requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing, an installment agreement (IA) and lien withdrawal. Petitioner did not contest his underlying tax liability. In a letter dated May 21, 2020, respondent's first settlement officer (SO1) notified petitioner that his telephonic CDP hearing was scheduled for June 30, 2020. SO1 also requested that petitioner complete Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employment Individuals, provide proof of estimated payments for the current year, and submit documentation for a lien withdrawal request.
During the telephonic CDP hearing on June 30, 2020, petitioner withdrew his request for an IA and instead requested an Offer in Compromise (OIC). Petitioner also confirmed he still wanted to be considered for lien withdrawal. SO1 informed petitioner that his lien withdrawal request did not meet the I.R.C. § 6323(j) criteria. SO1 reminded petitioner that none of his collection alternatives could be properly considered because he had not filed his 2019 return and did not submit any of the required documentation. Petitioner asked for additional time to file his return and provide the requested documents and he was given until July 21, 2020.
On July 21, 2020, petitioner filed an OIC request with respondent. Petitioner also filed his 2019 return and paid the liability owed. On August 21, 2020, the case was suspended while respondent considered petitioner's OIC. In April 2021, respondent rejected petitioner's OIC and, on June 28, 2021, transferred the case back to Appeals.
On July 23, 2021, respondent's second settlement officer (SO2) sent petitioner a letter to schedule a subsequent telephonic CDP hearing for August 16, 2021. On August 16, 2021, the parties held the CDP hearing. SO2 explained that the income expense table showed that petitioner could fully pay the debt, and therefore, the OIC would be rejected. At the hearing, petitioner did not contend that the lien should be removed. SO2 and petitioner did not reach an agreement regarding whether petitioner could enter into an IA.
On October 13, 2021, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRC Sections 6320 or 6330 (notice of determination) sustaining the lien. Petitioner, while residing in Fremont, California, timely filed a Petition with the Court and contended that respondent abused his discretion by not allowing his collection alternatives.
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) and 6320(c). The Court cannot consider issues that were not raised during the CDP hearing. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 114 (2007). Petitioner did not challenge his underlying liability during his CDP hearing or in the assignments of error in the Petition. Rule 331(b)(4); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182-83 (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, 350 (2010); Goza, 114 T.C. at 182.
Petitioner was ineligible for collection alternatives and lien withdrawal because he did not comply with respondent's requests or provide any of the required documents and forms. See McClaine v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 228, 243 (2012); Pough, 135 T.C. at 352. The Appeals officer met the requirements of section 6330(c) and respondent did not abuse his discretion. See §§ 6330(c)(2)(A) and 6320(c); Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 190 (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 forgoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed August 21, 2023, 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.