T.C. Memo. 2001-107
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
HARRY JAMES INMAN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 13390-99L. Filed May 4, 2001.
Harry James Inman, pro se.
Edwina L. Charlemagne, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COLVIN, Judge: Respondent sent to petitioner a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 in which respondent determined that a levy on
petitioner’s wages was appropriate to satisfy petitioner's
outstanding liabilities for Federal income taxes, additions to
- 2 -
tax, interest, and fees. On August 31, 1999, those amounts were
as follows:
Unpaid Unpaid Additions to Tax and Interest
Year Income Tax Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6651(a)(2) Interest
1985 $2,308.83 $1,153.80 $1,282.00 $14,998.10
1986 1,765.00 419.63 466.25 4,905.82
1987 1,019.00 229.28 254.75 2,334.63
1992 155.61 453.60 343.04 1,094.82
1994 1,714.00 385.65 428.50 997.72
1995 2,005.00 --- 501.25 664.67
Total 8,967.44 2,641.96 3,275.79 24,995.76
Respondent also assessed $18 for a lien fee for 1992.
We must decide the following issues:
1. Whether petitioner is entitled to relief under section
6320. We hold that he is not.
2. Whether petitioner is liable for the amounts determined
by respondent (including additions to tax and interest) for the
years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1994, and 1995. We hold that he
is.
3. Whether respondent may proceed with levy action. We
hold that respondent may.
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
FINDINGS OF FACT1
Petitioner lived in Greensboro, North Carolina, when he
filed the petition in this case. Petitioner is a civilian
employee of the Defense Department at Camp Lejeune. He works
full time as a pipe fitter for about $20 per hour.
Petitioner filed his income tax returns for 1985 on April
19, 1996, for 1986 on March 27, 1996, for 1987 on April 19, 1996,
for 1992 on April 23, 1995, and for 1994 on March 14, 1996. He
timely filed his 1995 tax return.
Respondent issued a notice of Federal tax lien on September
3, 1996, for 1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1994, and 1995, relating to
income tax liabilities that petitioner reported on his return,
less withholding credits and other payments, and including
additions to tax for failure to timely file returns and pay tax,
lien fees, and interest.
Respondent issued a Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy
and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, which petitioner received
on February 17, 1999. See secs. 6330 and 6331. Petitioner filed
a request for a hearing. In it, he stated that “every time I
talk to someone I get a different set of figures”, and that no
1
Petitioner refused before and at trial to stipulate facts
not fairly in dispute as required by Rule 91, including whether
copies of income tax returns with his name and signature for
1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1994, and 1995 were his. Thus, the Court
ordered that respondent’s proposed factual stipulations were
deemed established.
- 4 -
one had explained how he could owe the amounts sought by
respondent. At that hearing, petitioner did not otherwise
contest the underlying tax liability or accept any of the payment
options proposed by respondent. Respondent determined that
petitioner’s wages should be levied in a notice of determination
concerning collection actions under section 6330 sent on July 8,
1999. In response, petitioner filed the petition in this case.
OPINION
A. The Notice of Lien
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief under
section 6320 from the notice of lien. We disagree. Section 6320
was first effective January 19, 1999. See Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206,
sec. 3401(d), 112 Stat. 685, 750. Thus, section 6320 does not
apply to the notice of Federal tax lien issued on September 3,
1996.
B. Underlying Tax Liability
Respondent did not send a notice of deficiency to petitioner
for 1985, 1986, 1987, 1994, or 1995, but respondent did send a
notice of deficiency for 1992. Respondent does not contend that
petitioner may not raise issues relating to 1992 in this case, in
part because it is not clear whether petitioner received that
notice of deficiency. Thus, petitioner may challenge the
- 5 -
underlying liability for all of those years. See sec.
6330(c)(2)(B) (taxpayer may challenge amount of underlying tax
liability if taxpayer did not receive notice of deficiency for
period); Landry v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001).
However, petitioner has done so only in the most minimal way,
alleging that he does not understand how he can owe so much, but
without offering any credible evidence or challenging that he is
liable for the amounts he reported late.
C. The Levy Action
We have jurisdiction to review respondent’s determination to
proceed with the levy action on an abuse of discretion basis.
See sec. 6330(d); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182
(2000); H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 755,
1020. Petitioner contends that he cannot pay the taxes that are
due, but he is willing to forgo income tax refunds to which he
may be entitled for the current and future years. He testified
that he had offered to pay respondent $50 per month, but he did
not show why that amount would be appropriate. He offered no
credible evidence showing that respondent’s determination was an
abuse of discretion. Thus, we conclude that petitioner is not
entitled to relief.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.