Ford v. Comm'r

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

WELLS, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks judicial review of respondent's determination to proceed with a proposed levy. The issue to be decided is whether respondent's determination was an abuse of discretion. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.

At the time of the filing of the petition, petitioner resided in Columbia, Maryland. Petitioner filed Federal income tax returns for 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002. Because insufficient taxes were withheld or paid with respect to those returns, respondent assessed the following income tax liabilities: ¹

   Taxable Year        Liability

   ____________        _________

     1990         $ 14,276.52

     1991          5,185.82

     1994          7,125.11

*104      1995          21,075.43

     1996          6,448.00

     1997          13,362.68

     1998          21,936.82

     2002          2,969.31

               __________

              $ 92,379.69

*105 On June 2, 2004, respondent mailed to petitioner a Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, for petitioner's 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002 taxable years. In response, petitioner timely filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. With the Form 12153, petitioner submitted a statement contending, inter alia, that petitioner was incapable of paying the accrued interest and penalties, that the IRS misplaced three separate offers-in-compromise previously submitted by petitioner, that moving to a less expensive home was not financially feasible, and that petitioner supports a child.

Respondent's Appeals Office assigned the case to Settlement Appeals Officer Frank Kowalkowski (Appeals Officer Kowalkowski), who had no prior experience with petitioner's tax years in issue. On December 16, 2004, Appeals Officer Kowalkowski conducted a section 6330 hearing with petitioner by telephone. On January 26, 2005, respondent's Appeals Office issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, sustaining the proposed levy. Petitioner timely petitioned the Court.

*106 OPINION

Section 6330 provides that no levy may be made on any property or right to property of a person unless the Secretary first notifies the person in writing of the right to a hearing before respondent's Appeals Office. Section 6330(c)(1) provides that the Appeals officer must verify at the hearing that applicable laws and administrative procedures have been followed. The Appeals officer may rely on a Form 4340 for purposes of complying with section 6330(c)(1). Nestor v. Comm'r, 118 T.C. 162, 166 (2002). At the hearing, the person may raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions, and collection alternatives. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). The person may challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability, however, only if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

In the instant case, petitioner does not challenge the underlying liabilities. Consequently, we review respondent's determination for abuse*107 of discretion. See Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000); Sego v. Commissioner 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). We understand petitioner to contend that the failure of respondent's Appeals Office to accept a collection alternative constitutes an abuse of discretion.

During the section 6330 hearing, petitioner and Appeals Officer Kowalkowski reviewed petitioner's Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals (collection information statement), dated November 27, 2002. On the collection information statement, petitioner reported that he received monthly wage income of $ 9,500 as Finance Director of Rosenthal Acura and incurred the following monthly expenses:

   Item                   Amount

   ____                   ______

   Food, clothing, and misc.        $ 1,000

   Housing and utilities           2,000

   Transportation                600

   Health care                 290

   Taxes (income and FICA)    *108       1,828

   Court-ordered payments            500

   Child/dependent care             200

   Life insurance                210

   Other expenses               2,000

   _____________________           ______

   Total Living Expenses           8,628

Based upon the aforementioned income and expenses, Appeals Officer Kowalkowski determined that an acceptable installment agreement would require monthly payments of approximately $ 1,900 rather than the $ 900 monthly payments proposed by petitioner prior to the section 6330 hearing. In addition to the possibility of an installment agreement, petitioner and Appeals Officer Kowalkowski discussed the opportunity for petitioner to submit an offer-in-compromise or to discharge the tax liabilities in bankruptcy. Appeals Officer Kowalkowski and petitioner did not agree to a collection alternative during the section 6330 hearing. However, Appeals Officer Kowalkowski agreed to send petitioner transcripts of petitioner's accounts for each tax year in issue and to consider collection*109 alternatives proposed by petitioner as of January 14, 2005. Although Appeals Officer Kowalkowski subsequently mailed the transcripts, petitioner did not submit a collection alternative for Appeals Officer Kowalkowski's consideration.

As noted above, Appeals Officer Kowalkowski had no involvement with respect to the unpaid tax liabilities prior to the section 6330 hearing. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Appeals Officer Kowalkowski's determination that an acceptable installment agreement would require monthly payments of $ 1,900 is not an abuse of discretion. ² Petitioner did not challenge the appropriateness of the intended method of collection or raise a spousal defense. Furthermore, petitioner has made no contention and offered no evidence that Appeals Officer Kowalkowski either failed to properly verify that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were followed or failed to balance the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the concern that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.

*110 To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate decision will be entered.