2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 203 | Tax Ct. | 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SWIFT,
Respondent moves for summary judgment as to petitioner's challenges to respondent's lien filing and proposed levy relating to petitioner and his wife's outstanding Federal income tax liability for 1999 in the approximate total amount of $ 20,700. Petitioner objects to respondent's motion for summary judgment and contends that respondent failed to assess petitioner and his wife's 1999 Federal income tax liability within the assessment period of limitations set out in
The facts set forth below are established in the pleadings, moving papers, responses thereto, and attachments.
In 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 203">*204 1999 petitioner and his wife received wages in the approximate total amount of $ 72,500.
On April 15, 2000, petitioner and his wife filed with respondent a 1999 joint Federal income tax return reporting zero in wages and zero for their taxable income, which respondent treated as a valid return for filing purposes.
On November 21, 2001, and after an audit of petitioner and his wife's 1999 Federal income tax return, respondent did not charge petitioner and his wife with the above $ 72,500 in wage income, but respondent did determine a deficiency in petitioner and his wife's 1999 Federal income tax of $ 518. Respondent timely mailed to petitioner and his wife and they received a notice of deficiency (first notice of deficiency) for this additional $ 518. Neither petitioner nor his wife filed a petition in this Court with regard to the first notice of deficiency, and on May 6, 2002, respondent assessed against petitioner and his wife the $ 518.
On May 29, 2003, respondent mailed to petitioner and his wife a second notice of deficiency, which they received. In the second notice of deficiency respondent charged petitioner and his wife with the $ 72,500 in wage income which petitioner and his 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 203">*205 wife had omitted from their 1999 joint Federal income tax return (and which respondent had not included in the first notice of deficiency), resulting in an additional $ 11,169 deficiency in petitioner and his wife's Federal income taxes for 1999. Neither petitioner nor his wife filed a petition in this Court with regard to the second notice of deficiency, and on October 22, 2003, respondent assessed against petitioner and his wife the $ 11,169.
On June 7, 2005, respondent timely mailed to petitioner and his wife a notice of Federal tax lien relating to the October 22, 2003, assessment. On July 5, 2005, petitioner requested an Appeals Office collection hearing relating thereto. In connection with this hearing, petitioner did not provide respondent with the financial information which respondent requested. Petitioner did challenge the assessment as untimely.
On December 16, 2005, respondent's Appeals Office mailed to petitioner and his wife a notice of determination sustaining respondent's lien filing against them. On January 13, 2006, petitioner filed with this Court his petition challenging respondent's determination sustaining respondent's lien filing.
On February 10, 2006, respondent 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 203">*206 timely mailed to petitioner and his wife a final notice of intent to levy relating to the October 22, 2003, assessment. On March 7, 2006, petitioner requested an Appeals Office hearing relating to respondent's proposed levy. In connection with this hearing, petitioner submitted to respondent's Appeals Office limited financial information. On September 28, 2006, respondent's Appeals Office mailed to petitioner and his wife a notice of determination sustaining respondent's proposed levy.
On October 30, 2006, petitioner filed with this Court his petition challenging respondent's Appeals Office's determination sustaining respondent's levy.
Petitioner contends that respondent's October 22, 2003, assessment of petitioner's 1999 Federal income tax liability was not made within the assessment period of limitations prescribed by
Upon receipt of respondent's first and second notices of deficiency petitioner had the opportunity to challenge his wife's joint 1999 Federal income tax liability. Petitioner did not file a petition in this Court within the 90-day period prescribed by
Generally under
Accordingly, under
This 300-day extension established a lapse date for the assessment period of limitations that is applicable to this case of February 9, 2004. 1 Respondent's October 22, 2003, assessment falls well within this 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 203">*209 extended period of limitations.
Petitioner raises several other vague grounds for challenging respondent's Appeals Office's determination sustaining respondent's lien filing and proposed levy. Petitioner contends that he did not receive fair Appeals Office hearings and that he was denied an installment plan for payment of his Federal income taxes. 2
Summary judgment is proper where there remains no genuine issue of material fact and where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In connection with petitioner's first Appeals Office hearing, petitioner failed to submit financial information and failed to request collection alternatives. In connection with petitioner's first and second Appeals Office hearings, petitioner has not alleged any specific facts showing there is a genuine issue as to whether respondent's Appeals Office abused its discretion in sustaining respondent's lien filing and proposed levy action. See
On the record before us and as a matter of law we conclude that respondent's Appeals Office's determination sustaining respondent's lien filing and proposed levy was not an abuse of discretion.
For the reasons stated, we shall grant respondent's motion for summary judgment.
Footnotes
1. Apr. 15, 2000, plus 3 years plus 300 days fell on Feb. 9, 2004.↩
2. We note that where a taxpayer raises a reasonable dispute regarding an item of income which a third-party payor reported to the Commissioner on an information return and where the taxpayer fully cooperates with the Commissioner, the burden of production as to the income shifts to the Commissioner.
Sec. 6201(d) . Petitioner, however, has not raised any such dispute and would be precluded from doing so undersec. 6330(c)(2)(B) , andsec. 6201(d)↩ presents no barrier to our granting summary judgment.