592 F. App'x 824
11th Cir.2014Background
- Gentile appeals a Tax Court ruling upholding an IRS levy after a collection-due-process (CDP) hearing for 2001–2003 taxes.
- IRS sent an intent to levy on March 24, 2010; Gentile timely requested a CDP hearing.
- IRS settlement officers offered telephonic and in-person CDP hearing dates; Gentile did not timely respond.
- On August 3, 2011, DIST Office proposed four in-person dates; Gentile did not respond within 14 days; Diaz determined levy could proceed on August 25, 2011.
- Gentile later claimed he never received notices of deficiency; Tax Court held Gentile did not properly raise the underlying liability in the CDP hearing; the appeal affirms.
- The court notes its standard of review and discusses the scope of CDP proceedings and the proper basis for reviewing the Office of Appeals’ levy decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IRS Office of Appeals abused its discretion in sustaining the levy. | Gentile | IRS | Affirmed |
| Whether Gentile properly raised challenges to the underlying liability in the CDP hearing. | Gentile | IRS | Gentile did not raise the issue; levy upheld |
| Whether non-receipt of deficiency notices affects the levy review in CDP. | Gentile | IRS | Not reached/unsupported since underlying-liability challenge not properly raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Bone v. Commissioner, 324 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for findings of fact is clear error; conclusions of law de novo)
- Living Care Alternatives of Utica, Inc. v. United States, 411 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2005) (abuses of discretion and CDP framework considered on review)
- Williams v. Commissioner, 718 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2013) (face-to-face hearing not required in CDP process)