T.C. Memo. 2013-194
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
STEPHEN R. BLACKMAN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 22890-09L. Filed August 26, 2013.
Ronny Buni, for petitioner.
Mimi M. Wong and Michael J. De Matos, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FOLEY, Judge: The issue for decision is whether respondent abused his
discretion in sustaining a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) relating to petitioner’s
-2-
[*2] 2007 tax liability. The parties submitted this case fully stipulated pursuant to
Rule 122.1
Background
Petitioner, a management consultant, filed his 2007 Federal income tax
return but failed to pay the full amount of his tax liability. On September 2, 2008,
respondent sent petitioner a Letter 3172, Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and
Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, relating to 2007. Respondent, on
October 30, 2008, sent petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and
Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (levy notice), relating to 2007. Petitioner
requested a hearing relating to the levy notice but did not request a hearing
relating to the NFTL.
On February 23, 2009, respondent sent petitioner a letter scheduling a
telephonic collection due process (CDP) hearing for March 18, 2009. In letters
sent to respondent, and during the scheduled telephonic hearing, petitioner
proposed an installment agreement and requested withdrawal of the NFTL.
Petitioner asserted that withdrawal was appropriate because he had no current
assets that could be secured by the lien and public disclosure of the NFTL could
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
-3-
[*3] cause him to “be fired and become permanently unemployable within * * *
[his] industry.” In addition, petitioner provided the Appeals officer with a Form
433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed
Individuals. On April 21, 2009, petitioner sent the Appeals officer an additional
letter requesting withdrawal of the NFTL and a copy of his employer’s “employee
handbook.” Petitioner asserted that the handbook “makes it clear that personal
conduct away from work can impact employability if it has the potential to cast an
adverse light on the business.”
Petitioner did not request a hearing relating to the NFTL. On June 10, 2009,
the Appeals officer faxed a letter to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Technical
Services requesting advice as to whether the NFTL should be withdrawn. In
response, IRS Technical Services sent petitioner a letter advising him that the
NFTL would not be withdrawn because it was “necessary to protect the
government’s interest”. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent entered into an
installment agreement relating to petitioner’s 2006, 2007, and 2008 tax liabilities.
In September 2009, respondent sent petitioner a notice of determination sustaining
the NFTL and informing him that the installment agreement was granted as an
alternative to the proposed levy. Petitioner, while residing in New York, timely
filed his petition with the Court.
-4-
[*4] Discussion
The validity of petitioner’s underlying tax liability is not at issue.
Therefore, we review respondent’s administrative determination for abuse of
discretion. See Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). Respondent
determined that the NFTL “was necessary to protect the government’s interest”
and that withdrawal would not facilitate collection of the tax liability. See sec.
6323(j); secs. 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E6, 301.6323(j)-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Petitioner contends that respondent abused his discretion by not withdrawing the
NFTL and failing to consider the impact of the NFTL on petitioner’s employment.
Respondent entered into an installment agreement with petitioner but had
the discretion to maintain the NFTL. See sec. 301.6323(j)-1(c), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. (“If the Commissioner determines conditions for withdrawal are present, the
Commissioner may (but is not required to) authorize the withdrawal.”). The
Appeals officer reviewed the information petitioner submitted, evaluated
petitioner’s contentions, verified that the requirements of applicable law and
administrative procedure had been met, and balanced the need for the efficient
collection of taxes with petitioner’s concerns. See sec. 6330(c). In sum,
respondent reasonably determined that it was appropriate to maintain the NFTL in
order to allow collection of petitioner’s tax liability in the event that he acquired
-5-
[*5] additional assets or defaulted on the installment agreement. See sec. 6323(j);
secs. 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E6, 301.6323(j)-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Respondent’s decision not to withdraw the NFTL was not arbitrary or capricious.
See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.