Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Truex v Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Case No. 21109-12L (U.S. Tax Ct., Apr. 9, 2014)

This collection review matter is before the Court because petitioner challenges respondent’s determination notice sustaining a final notice of intent to levy (proposed collection action). See sec. 6330(d)(1). Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment (motion). See Rule 121.

Petitioner did not respond to the motion despite our ordering him to do so. Nor did petitioner appear for calendar call or the scheduled hearing on the motion. We must therefore decide on a very limited record whether respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action. We hold he did not.

Background



We recite the uncontested facts in the petition, the motion and the exhibits attached to these documents. Petitioner resided in Utah when he filed the petition.

Petitioner failed to file a Federal income tax return for 2007, and respondent prepared a substitute for return for him. Petitioner failed to pay the tax shown on the substitute for return (2007 tax liability), and respondent prepared a deficiency notice for the 2007 tax liability. Respondent sent the deficiency notice to petitioner’s last known (and current) address by certified mail. Petitioner did not file a petition with this Court to challenge the 2007 tax liability.








 

 

Judge(s): Diane Kroupa
Jurisdiction: U.S. Tax Court
Related Categories: Employment , Government / Politics , Property , Securities , Taxation
 
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Diane Kroupa

 
Petitioner Lawyer(s) Petitioner Law Firm(s)
Leslie Truex Pro se

 
Respondent Lawyer(s) Respondent Law Firm(s)
Skyler Bradbury Internal Revenue Service
Charles Burnett Internal Revenue Service

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
respondent sent petitioner a notice and demand for payment of the 2007 tax [*4] verify that respondent had followed all required procedures, to contest the replace the substitute for return respondent had prepared. so tittle requested that not allow him to dispute the 2007 tax liability. we have found that petitioner penalty should be substantial if it is to have the desired deterrent effect. see respondent. maintains that petitioner received a deficiency notice but failed to use the petitioner also questioned why so tittle wanted to see his 2009 and 2010 federal -6- [*6] petitioner sent another letter to so tittle. petitioner again raised the issues that petitioner call her at the scheduled time because petitioner had failed to telephone conference or one or more written communications between a taxpayer [*10] respondent placed the deficiency notice and the signed and stamped with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material respondent, in contrast, offers so tittle’s affidavit and its supporting documents assessed and the validity of the underlying tax liabilities is properly at issue. see lacks merit. respond to the motion or to appear at calendar call or the scheduled hearing on the risk of non-delivery on the taxpayer. see id. petitioner claimed that he had not received the deficiency notice and asked so to the motion and has therefore raised no genuine dispute as to any material fact. petitioner asked why he was being denied a face-to-face hearing. petitioner also finish with a warning to petitioner that he is at serious risk of our imposing a when the court has been faced with meritless arguments that waste the [*9] review a determination de novo, however, where a taxpayer has not received had a right to a face-to-face collection hearing while respondent maintains that judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable materials, together evidence and do not rebut the presumption of delivery. we therefore find that received the deficiency notice and had an opportunity to challenge the 2007 tax we recite the uncontested facts in the petition, the motion and the exhibits include a telephone number on his collection hearing request. so tittle also tax on money petitioner earned. we must decide whether to grant summary petitioner timely filed a request for a collection hearing. petitioner requested a hearing before he can levy upon the taxpayer’s property or rights to property. sec. other things, that petitioner signed away his sovereign rights and that u.s. dollars 2007 tax liability and associated penalties and to discuss collection alternatives. so tittle then issued a determination sustaining the proposed collection commissioner, t.c. memo. 2012-270. the need for effective tax collection. petitioner timely filed the petition. the parties next disagree on whether the collection hearing was impartial.5 letter was to state that an employer must hire a person even if that person refuses the collection hearing. see sec. 6330(c)(2)(b). accordingly, petitioner’s assertion 119 t.c. 157, 162 (2002). the party opposing summary judgment must set forth obligated to return all funds that he had collected from petitioner over petitioner’s must verify the commissioner has satisfied all applicable legal and administrative -10- the parties next disagree on whether petitioner was entitled to challenge the petitioner challenges respondent’s determination notice sustaining a final notice of [*11] support his assertion and relies solely on the allegations in the petition. the parties next disagree on whether petitioner was entitled to audio record specific facts to show there is a genuine dispute for trial or make persuasive discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action. we hold he did not. december 2, 2010. petitioner, in stark contrast, merely alleges that he did not specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial and may not rely we now explain why respondent did not abuse his discretion in sustaining conducting a collection hearing must be impartial. sec. 6330(b)(3). specifically, she denied petitioner a face-to-face collection hearing. petitioner asserts that he we begin with our summary judgment standard. we then discuss collection nor did petitioner appear for calendar call or the scheduled hearing on the motion. provide any support for his assertion. accordingly, petitioner’s assertion lacks so tittle’s determination concerning the 2007 tax liability de novo. if respondent and various exhibits from the collection hearing. petitioner has failed to respond -7- our imposing a penalty against him if he continues to institute proceedings in this liability. petitioner returned the notice and demand to respondent with a background procedure, unless otherwise indicated. amended, and all rule references are to the tax court rules of practice and commissioner must inform a taxpayer of the taxpayer’s right to a collection sego v. commissioner, 114 t.c. at 610; goza v. commissioner, 114 t.c. at 181- petitioner did not raise any meritorious challenges to the determination to be conducted through correspondence. so tittle explained that petitioner was not respondent failed to provide these “proofs of claim.” respondent would also be court as a protest against the federal income tax system. this court is authorized merely on allegations or denials in the pleadings. rule 121(d); see also celotex opinion, 101 f.3d 695 (4th cir. 1996). the purpose of section 6673 is to compel collection hearing. so tittle had no previous involvement with the 2007 tax regs. furthermore, we have held that there is generally no abuse of discretion so tittle sent petitioner a letter explaining that the collection hearing would that he was not a federal government employee and therefore he was not subject petitioner failed to file a federal income tax return for 2007, and respondent arbitrary, capricious or without sound basis in fact or law. again protested that he had not received the deficiency notice. corp. v. catrett, 477 u.s. 317, 322 (1986). docket no. 21109-12l. filed april 9, 2014. reschedule the collection hearing and again asked petitioner to provide tax liability the commissioner is trying to collect. id. so tittle stated in her all section references are to the internal revenue code of 1986, as1 entitled to a face-to-face hearing because he had failed to file federal income tax discussion petitioner provide her with a form 433-a, collection information statement for the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant or without talmage v. commissioner, t.c. memo. 1996-114, aff’d without published petitioner’s last known (and current) address by certified mail. petitioner did not opportunity to challenge the 2007 tax liability. if petitioner is correct, we review us, as it should have been to respondent, that this pro se petitioner had intended to there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and petitioner has not offered any face-to-face hearing, which he asked to audio record. petitioner also raised administrative requirements during the collection hearing. petitioner argues that4 to be allowed to address some issues before the hearing was next scheduled. the parties first disagree on whether respondent met all applicable legal and arguments that would convince us that so tittle acted in a manner that was accordingly, petitioner’s assertion lacks merit. petitioner asserts that the collection hearing was partial. the appeals officer raised, and balanced the intrusiveness of the proposed collection actions against a face-to-face meeting). accordingly, petitioner’s argument lacks merit. contained tax-protester arguments and directed respondent to prove, among many notice for the 2007 tax liability. respondent sent the deficiency notice to respondent mailed a levy notice to petitioner for the 2007 tax liability, and corp. v. commissioner, 75 t.c. 318, 323 (1980), aff’d without published opinion, informed petitioner that he could submit a federal income tax return for 2007 to -15- is correct, we review this determination for abuse of discretion. merit. t.c. 604, 610 (2000); goza v. commissioner, 114 t.c. 176, 181-182 (2000). we information as so tittle had requested. so tittle provided petitioner with a copy an appeals officer must heed certain considerations in determining whether memorandum opinion merit. therefore conclude so tittle did not abuse her discretion by sustaining the [*5] petitioner sent so tittle a letter explaining that the time and date originally respondent did not meet all applicable requirements but offers no specific facts to we note that petitioner repeats this allegation in his several letters to so3 commissioner, 791 f.2d 68, 71 (7th cir. 1986); grasselli v. commissioner, t.c. 610; goza v. commissioner, 114 t.c. at 181-182. liability. so tittle scheduled a telephone collection hearing. so tittle requested when the commissioner denies a face-to-face hearing request because a taxpayer proposed collection action, and we will grant respondent’s motion for summary -8- collection hearing. petitioner also failed to submit his financial information or his the record reflects that so tittle verified that respondent had satisfied all [*2] intent to levy (proposed collection action). see sec. 6330(d)(1). respondent1 to sustain a proposed collection action. sec. 6330(c). namely, the appeals officer petitioner comes before us in defiance of respondent’s authority to collect petitioner did not respond to the motion despite our ordering him to do so. for consideration of the facts and issues involved in the collection hearing. sec. petitioner did not have such a right. we agree with respondent. lifetime. action. in doing so so tittle verified that respondent had satisfied all applicable leslie truex, pro se. memo. 1994-581. must give a person a non-interest-bearing account even if that person refuses to that the deficiency notice was actually delivered to petitioner’s address on rivas v. commissioner, t.c. memo. 2012-20 (citing katz v. commissioner, 115 to provide his social security number. the second letter was to state that a bank previously involved with petitioner’s collection action. petitioner has failed to 2007 tax liability. petitioner asserts it was an abuse of discretion for so tittle to6 [*8] b. collection actions generally federal income tax returns. we now take this opportunity to warn petitioner that he is at serious risk of a deficiency notice or has not otherwise had the opportunity to challenge the tax 2007 tax liability. the remainder of the record also reflects that so tittle was not and an appeals officer. see sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), q&a-d6, proced. & admin. judgment. has filed a motion for summary judgment (motion). see rule 121. shortly thereafter petitioner sent so tittle another letter. this time, to respondent. -4- impartial, and respondent agreed with this apparent misstatement. it is evident to we have jurisdiction to review a determination made by an appeals officer accordingly, this case is ripe for summary judgment. cf., e.g., venhuizen v. [*12] financial information as prerequisites to the consideration of collection petitioner actually stated in the petition the collection hearing was5 kroupa, judge: this collection review matter is before the court because entitled to judgment as a matter of law. see, e.g., rauenhorst v. commissioner, intrusiveness of a collection action against the need for effective tax collection. the collection hearing. respondent argues that petitioner was not entitled to audio t.c. memo. 2014-64 [*13] record the collection hearing because it was not a face-to-face hearing. we respondent assigned settlement officer tittle (so tittle) to conduct the leslie truex, petitioner v. petitioner did not call so tittle at the time or on the date scheduled for the commissioner, t.c. memo. 2009-110, aff’d, 363 fed. appx. 675 (10th cir. 2010). office of appeals (appeals officer). sec 6330(b). found that the taxpayer deserves a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) and that court has never held that taxpayers are entitled to audio record anything other than an appropriate order and properly addressed letter will be delivered, or will be offered for delivery, to the of regularity, delivery and receipt. there is a strong presumption in the law that a officer’s determination for abuse of discretion. see sego v. commissioner, 114 -9- decision will be entered for we first discuss our summary judgment standard. a motion for summary certified mailing list into the record. respondent provided additional evidence we must therefore decide on a very limited record whether respondent abused his 301.6330-1(e)(1), proced. & admin. regs. penalty against him for instituting proceedings in this court as a protest against action against the need for effective tax collection. see sec. 6330(c). we [*7] a. summary judgment standard file a petition with this court to challenge the 2007 tax liability. petitioner received the deficiency notice. accordingly, we review so tittle’s we have held repeatedly that a collection hearing is an informal proceeding the substitute for return (2007 tax liability), and respondent prepared a deficiency [*3] “conditional acceptance” attached. the “conditional acceptance” skyler k. bradbury and charles b. burnett, for respondent. primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous c. proposed collection action id. a taxpayer must provide all relevant information the appeals officer requests petitioner makes several other arguments that we will not address because6 arts, inc. v. commissioner, 118 t.c. 226, 238 (2002). the moving party has the wage earners and self-employed individuals, and his 2009 and 2010 federal provide his social security number. fails to present non-frivolous arguments, file past-due returns and submit current the federal income tax system. --not a formal adjudication--and that a face-to-face hearing is not mandatory. see t.c. 329, 337 (2000)). a collection hearing may include a face-to-face meeting, a we now turn to collection actions generally. the commissioner is united states tax court attached to these documents. petitioner resided in utah when he filed the petition. taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles. coleman v. to the federal income tax.2 catrett, 477 u.s. at 322. accordingly, petitioner’s assertion lacks merit. 2009 and 2010 federal income tax returns. so tittle sent petitioner a letter to tittle using the same stock language. scheduled for the collection hearing were not convenient for him. petitioner asked actions generally and explain why we will grant summary judgment here. we to require a taxpayer to pay to the united states a penalty up to $25,000 whenever again failed to provide any of the documents so tittle had requested. we find that petitioner received the deficiency notice under the presumption we have considered all arguments made in reaching our decision, and, to commissioner of internal revenue, respondent they appear to derive from the tax-protester material he had previously submitted petitioner contends he did not receive the deficiency notice and that he has to reflect the foregoing, income tax returns because he had yet to file them. tittle to send him the rules and procedures that govern collection hearings. addressee. bailey v. commissioner, t.c. memo. 2005-241 (citing zenco engg. -5- it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer receive the deficiency notice. petitioner’s bare allegations are not credible3 -2- -11- d. conclusion 6330(a). the collection hearing is held with an officer within the commissioner’s the appeals officer must not have had any prior involvement with the particular argue that the collection hearing was partial. applicable legal and administrative requirements, considered all relevant issues -3- the parties next disagree on whether so tittle abused her discretion when several issues relating to the 2007 tax liability. in particular, petitioner wanted to petitioner sent another letter to respondent in an attempt to explain why he of the deficiency notice. she told petitioner that he had missed his opportunity to requirements, consider all relevant issues that a taxpayer raises and balance the -12- 673 f.2d 1332 (7th cir. 1981)). proper mailing of a deficiency notice places the -13- as evidence that he did meet all applicable requirements. respondent has proven income tax returns. judgment so that respondent can collect the tax petitioner does not want to pay. [*14] or groundless. see sec. 6673(a)(1)(a) and (b); see, e.g., wnuck v. petitioner also requested that respondent send him two letters. the first2 182. fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. see rule 121(b); elec. returns for 2009 and 2010 or to provide documentation of his financial motion. commissioner, 136 t.c. 498, 513-514 (2011). -14- court’s and the commissioner’s limited time and resources, we have consistently documentation of his financial information and copies of his 2009 and 2010 not otherwise had an opportunity to challenge the 2007 tax liability. respondent burden of proving that no genuine dispute of material fact exists and that it is authorized to collect an unpaid federal tax liability by levy. sec. 6331. the liability at that time. he therefore could not challenge the 2007 tax liability during that he had raised in his previous correspondence with so tittle. and petitioner [*15] petitioner raised, and balanced the intrusiveness of the proposed collection alternatives. see zastrow v. commissioner, t.c. memo. 2010-215; moline v. was not “legally required to file a 1040.” the gist of his argument this time was we draw petitioner’s assertions from his petition because he failed to4 sustain the proposed collection action. nor did petitioner otherwise set forth respondent supports the motion with the pleadings, so tittle’s declaration, determination for abuse of discretion. see sego v. commissioner, 114 t.c. at contest the 2007 tax liability. specific facts indicating otherwise. see rule 121(d); see also celotex corp. v. the proposed collection action. prepared a substitute for return for him. petitioner failed to pay the tax shown on legal and administrative requirements, considered all relevant issues petitioner had in a collection hearing. sec. 6330(d)(1). we generally review the appeals affidavit that she had no prior involvement with petitioner’s case concerning the are available to pay taxes. respondent would be placed “in dishonor” if agree. see calafati v. commissioner, 127 t.c. 219, 228 (2006) (noting that this


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise