T.C. Memo. 2002-204
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DENNIS M. MUDD, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 743-02L. Filed August 14, 2002.
Dennis M. Mudd, pro se.
Laurence K. Williams and A. Gary Begun, for
respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before
the Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 40.1
1
Section references are to sections of the Internal
(continued...)
- 2 -
Because respondent has presented matters outside of the
pleadings, we treat respondent’s motion as a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 121. See Rule 40. Respondent contends
that there is no dispute as to any material fact with respect to
this levy action, and that respondent’s determination to proceed
with collection of petitioner’s outstanding tax liabilities for
1992 to 1997 and 1999 should be sustained as a matter of law.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy “if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories,
depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be
rendered as a matter of law.” Rule 121(a) and (b); Sundstrand
Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965
(7th Cir. 1994); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988);
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The moving
party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue
of material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner
1
(...continued)
Revenue Code, as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom
v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982).
As explained in detail below, there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact, and a decision may be rendered as a matter
of law. Accordingly, we shall grant respondent’s motion for
summary judgment.
Background
Petitioner and his wife, Sheila Mudd, filed joint Forms
1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the taxable years
1992 to 1997 and 1999. For each of these years, the Mudds
reported taxable income, partially offset by credits for
withholding taxes, leaving relatively modest amounts of taxes
due. However, the Mudds failed to remit the amounts due with the
returns.
Upon the filing of the tax returns described above,
respondent entered assessments against the Mudds for the taxes
reported to be due. See sec. 6201(a)(1). Respondent also
entered assessments against the Mudds for statutory interest for
each of the years in question.
On November 16, 2000, respondent mailed the Mudds a Final
Notice-–Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a
Hearing with regard to their tax liabilities for 1992 to 1997 and
1999. On December 13, 2000, the Mudds filed with respondent a
- 4 -
Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, in
which they challenged the validity of the assessments and
asserted that respondent failed to serve them with a valid notice
and demand for payment.
On June 4, 2001, respondent issued to the Mudds separate
Notices CP 504, “Urgent!! We [respondent] intend to levy on
certain assets. Please respond NOW”, for 1992 to 1997 and 1999,
informing them they owed taxes for those years and requesting
payment within 10 days. The Mudds failed to pay the amounts
owing.
On July 23, 2001, Appeals Officer Tom Conger conducted an
Appeals Office hearing that the Mudds attended. During the
hearing, petitioner acknowledged that Appeals Officer Conger
provided him with transcripts of account for the years in
question.2 Petitioner also acknowledged that he had filed tax
returns for the years in question reporting taxable income and
taxes due.
On November 21, 2001, respondent issued to the Mudds
separate Notices of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s)
Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. The notices stated that the
Appeals Office determined that it was appropriate to proceed with
collection for 1992 to 1997 and 1999. On January 7, 2002,
2
The record includes copies of transcripts of account for
the years in question dated June 14, 2001.
- 5 -
petitioner filed with the Court a petition for lien or levy
action seeking review of respondent’s notice of determination.3
At the time that the petition was filed, petitioner resided in
Allegan, Michigan. Sheila Mudd did not join in filing the
petition.
As indicated, respondent maintains that there is no dispute
as to a material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. In particular, respondent contends that the
Appeals officer’s review of transcripts of account with regard to
petitioner’s account for 1992 to 1997 and 1999 satisfied the
verification requirement imposed under section 6330(c)(1) and
demonstrates that petitioner was issued a notice and demand for
payment for each of those years.
Petitioner filed an objection to respondent’s motion.
Thereafter, pursuant to notice, respondent’s motion was called
for hearing at the Court’s motions session in Washington, D.C.
Discussion
Section 6331(a) provides that if any person liable to pay
any tax neglects or refuses to pay such tax within 10 days after
notice and demand for payment, the Secretary is authorized to
3
The petition was delivered to the Court in an envelope
bearing a timely U.S. Postal Service postmark dated Dec. 14,
2001. See sec. 6330(d). We attribute the delay in the delivery
of the petition to the Court to delays associated with the
anthrax contamination that occurred at the U.S. Postal Service’s
Brentwood facility in Oct. 2001.
- 6 -
collect such tax by levy on the person’s property. Section
6331(d) provides that at least 30 days before enforcing
collection by levy on the person’s property, the Secretary is
obliged to provide the person with a final notice of intent to
levy, including notice of the administrative appeals available to
the person.
Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner cannot
proceed with collection by levy until the person has been given
notice and the opportunity for an administrative review of the
matter (in the form of an Appeals Office hearing) and, if
dissatisfied, with judicial review of the administrative
determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000).
Section 6330(c) prescribes the matters that a person may
raise at an Appeals Office hearing. In sum, section 6330(c)
provides that a person may raise collection issues such as
spousal defenses, the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s
intended collection action, and possible alternative means of
collection. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that the existence
and amount of the underlying tax liability can be contested at an
Appeals Office hearing only if the person did not receive a
notice of deficiency for the taxes in question or did not
otherwise have an earlier opportunity to dispute the tax
liability. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000);
- 7 -
Goza v. Commissioner, supra. Section 6330(d) provides for
judicial review of the administrative determination in the Tax
Court or a Federal District Court, as may be appropriate.
Petitioner first contends that he was denied the opportunity
to challenge the existence or amount of his tax liabilities for
the years in question. The record in this case shows otherwise.
Respondent summarily assessed the underlying taxes for 1992
to 1997 and 1999 inasmuch as petitioner reported such tax
liabilities on his tax returns. Sec. 6201(a)(1). Consequently,
respondent did not issue notices of deficiency to petitioner for
the years in question. However, during the administrative
hearing, the Appeals officer invited petitioner to show him “that
the underlying tax is incorrect”. Rather than offer proof
challenging the existence or amount of the tax liabilities,
petitioner responded by demanding that the Appeals officer cite
the statutory provision making petitioner liable for Federal
income taxes. The Appeals officer declined to do so.
The record also shows that petitioner’s position regarding
his liability for Federal income taxes is frivolous and
groundless. In particular, in his objection to respondent’s
motion, petitioner asserts: “Money that is earned while engaged
in my God given and Constitutional RIGHT to life liberty and the
pursuit of happiness is not a taxable source of income unless
apportioned by the States.” As the Court of Appeals for the
- 8 -
Fifth Circuit has remarked: “We perceive no need to refute these
arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of
precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some
colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417
(5th Cir. 1984). Suffice it to say that petitioner is a taxpayer
who is subject to the Federal income tax on his wages and other
sources of income. See secs. 1(c), 61(a)(1), (11), 7701(a)(1),
(14); Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165 (2002).
We likewise reject petitioner’s argument that the Appeals
officer failed to obtain verification from the Secretary that the
requirements of all applicable laws and administrative procedures
were met as required by section 6330(c)(1). The record shows
that the Appeals officer obtained and reviewed transcripts of
account with regard to petitioner’s taxable years 1992 to 1997
and 1999.
Federal tax assessments are formally recorded on a record of
assessment. Sec. 6203. “The summary record, through supporting
records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the
character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if
applicable, and the amount of the assessment.” Sec. 301.6203-1,
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Section 6330(c)(1) does not require the Commissioner to rely
on a particular document to satisfy the verification requirement
imposed therein. Weishan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-88;
- 9 -
Lindsey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87; Tolotti v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-86; Duffield v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-53; Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-51. In
this regard, we observe that the transcripts of account on which
the Appeals officer relied contained all the information
prescribed in section 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. See
Weishan v. Commissioner, supra; Lindsey v. Commissioner, supra;
Tolotti v. Commissioner, supra; Duffield v. Commissioner, supra;
Kuglin v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner has not alleged any irregularity in the
assessment procedure that would raise a question about the
validity of the assessments or the information contained in the
transcripts of account. See Nestor v. Commissioner, supra at
167; Mann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. Accordingly, we
hold that the Appeals officer satisfied the verification
requirement of section 6330(c)(1). Cf. Nicklaus v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 117, 120-121 (2001).
Petitioner also contends that he never received a notice and
demand for payment for the years in question. The requirement
that the Secretary issue a notice and demand for payment is set
forth in section 6303(a), which provides in pertinent part:
SEC. 6303(a) General Rule.-–Where it is not
otherwise provided by this title, the Secretary shall,
as soon as practicable, and within 60 days, after the
making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to section
- 10 -
6203, give notice to each person liable for the unpaid
tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof.
* * *
The record in this case includes notices CP 504, dated
June 4, 2001, addressed to petitioner and his wife for each of
the years in question. Petitioner does not deny that he received
such notices. These notices informed petitioner that he owed
taxes for 1992 to 1997 and 1999, and included a demand for the
immediate payment of the amounts due. Such notices constitute
notice and demand for payment within the meaning of section
6303(a). See, e.g., Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536
(9th Cir. 1992); Weishan v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a
valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended
collection action, or offer alternative means of collection.
These issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b)(4). Under the
circumstances, we conclude that respondent is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law sustaining the notice of
determination dated November 21, 2001.
As a final matter, we mention section 6673(a)(1), which
authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the
United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it
appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by
the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position
in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless. The Court has
indicated its willingness to impose such penalties in collection
- 11 -
review cases. Roberts v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365 (2002);
Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000). Although we shall
not impose a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1)
in the present case, we admonish petitioner that the Court will
consider imposing such a penalty should he return to the Court in
the future and advance similar arguments.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order and decision will
be entered granting respondent’s
motion for summary judgment.