Radeke v. Comm'r
104 T.C.M. 578
Tax Ct.2012Background
- Radeke failed to file returns for 2000, 2003, and 2004; the IRS prepared substitutes under §6020(b).
- The IRS issued notices of deficiency for 2000/2003 and 2004; Radeke did not petition these notices for redetermination.
- The IRS issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and a Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, proposing levy for unpaid liabilities.
- Radeke requested a CDP hearing and sought collection alternatives but did not timely submit Form 433-A or delinquent returns.
- A settlement officer held a CDP hearing by telephone on January 25, 2011 and discussed withdrawal from CDP and an offer in compromise.
- On April 4, 2011 the Determination upheld the levy; Radeke petitioned this Court for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can underlying tax liabilities be challenged in CDP review? | Radeke contends the underlying liabilities or their amounts may be challenged. | Commissioner argues §6330(c)(2)(B) precludes challenges to underlying liabilities at this stage. | Underlying liabilities not properly before the Court. |
| Did the settlement officer abuse discretion in denying collection alternatives? | Radeke needed more time and access to forms due to nonfiling and health issues. | Radeke failed to provide required financial information; officer could deny alternatives without abuse. | No abuse of discretion; lack of financial information justified denial of alternatives. |
| Was the CDP hearing proper given its informal nature? | Petitioner argues the telephone discussion was not a hearing. | CDP hearings can be informal by telephone; no oath or subpoena required. | CDP hearing conducted properly. |
| May the Court review the Respondent's summary-judgment determination de novo or for abuse of discretion? | Radeke challenges the levy determination as untimely or improper. | Respondent seeks summary judgment; there are no genuine disputes of material fact. | Summary judgment sustained; no genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604 (2000) (de novo review when underlying liability properly at issue)
- Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000) (underlying liability not properly at issue, review for abuse of discretion)
- Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197 (2008) (abuse of discretion standard for nonliability issues)
- Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301 (2005) (abuse of discretion considerations in CDP contexts)
- Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19 (1999) (abuse of discretion framework in collection matters)
- Moser v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-208 (2012) (discussion of abuse of discretion and CDP factors)
- Olsen v. United States, 414 F.3d 144 (1st Cir. 2005) (administrative hearing discretion and information submission considerations)
- Yoel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-222 (2012) (requirement of financial information in CDP proceedings)
- Shanley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2009-17 (2009) (time extensions in collection-due-process context)