T.C. Memo. 2002-243
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
CLYDE E. HACK AND CAROLE J. HACK, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 6846-01L. Filed September 25, 2002.
Clyde E. Hack and Carole J. Hack, pro sese.
Rachael J. Zepeda, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LARO, Judge: Petitioners, while residing in Mesa, Arizona,
petitioned the Court under section 6330(d) to review respondent’s
determination as to his proposed levy upon their property.
Respondent proposed the levy to collect a 1997 Federal income tax
liability (including an accuracy-related penalty and interest) of
-2-
approximately $630.77.1 Currently, the case is before the Court
on respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 121 and to
impose a penalty under section 6673. Petitioners responded to
respondent’s motion by way of a general objection.
We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and
shall impose a $2,000 penalty against petitioners. Unless
otherwise noted, section references are to the applicable
versions of the Internal Revenue Code. Rule references are to
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Background
On April 15, 1998, petitioners filed a joint 1997 Federal
income tax return in which they reported no wages, other income,
or tax liability. They entered zeros on every line of the
return, but for the lines related to “Federal income tax withheld
from Forms W-2 and 1099." Petitioners claimed on the return a
refund of $13,681.74 for withheld taxes. They attached to the
return a declaration stating in part that “this return is not
being filed voluntarily,” that petitioners “had ‘zero’ income
according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income”, and that
petitioners “can only swear to having ‘zero’ income in 1997.”
Petitioners included with their return three 1997 Forms W-2,
Wage and Tax Statement. The first Form W-2 was from TEXMO Oil
1
We use the term “approximately” because this amount was
computed before the present proceeding and has since increased on
account of interest.
-3-
Company Jobbers Inc. and reported that it had paid to Clyde Hack
$432 in wages and withheld from those wages Federal income tax of
$2.89. The second Form W-2 was from Systems & Computer Tech and
reported that it had paid to Carole Hack $35,438.46 in wages and
withheld from those wages Federal income tax of $6,374.45. The
third Form W-2 was from Pilot Corporation and reported that it
had paid to Clyde Hack $39,731.09 in wages and withheld from
those wages Federal income tax of $7,304.20.
On July 16, 1999, respondent issued a notice of deficiency
to petitioners. The notice determined that petitioners were
liable for a $15,404.30 deficiency in their 1997 income tax and a
$79.31 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).
Petitioners did not petition the Court with respect to the
notice. Instead, on September 23, 1999, petitioners sent to
respondent a letter entitled “Your Deficiency Notice dated July
16, 1999.” Petitioners stated in this letter that the notice of
deficiency was invalid because it was not sent by the Secretary
and lacked a proper delegation of authority to the signatory;
i.e., the director of the Ogden Service Center. On February 28,
2000, respondent assessed petitioners’ tax liability for 1997 as
per the notice of deficiency.
On August 3, 2000, respondent mailed to petitioners a “Final
Notice - Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a
Hearing” (final notice). The final notice informed petitioners
-4-
of (1) respondent’s intention to levy under section 6331 and
(2) petitioners’ right under section 6330 to a hearing with
respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals). Enclosed with the
final notice was a copy of Form 12153, Request for a Collection
Due Process Hearing.
On August 5, 2000, petitioners sent to respondent the Form
12153 requesting the referenced hearing. Petitioners attached to
the Form a request that the hearing officer have at the hearing
“the specific Code Section making me [petitioners] ‘liable’ for
the income tax at issue, along with Form 23C” and “The delegation
of authority from the Secretary authorizing such persons [IRS
employees] to impose a ‘frivolous’ penalty.” On January
10, 2001, respondent sent to petitioners a letter stating that
petitioners were precluded by section 6330(c)(2)(B) from raising
liability as an issue and that all other issues raised by
petitioners were without merit. Respondent enclosed with that
letter a transcript of petitioners’ account.
On January 30, 2001, Appeals Officer Wiley Davis held with
petitioners a hearing under section 6330. On May 8, 2001,
respondent issued to petitioners duplicate Notices of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 for 1997. These notices reflected the determination
of Appeals to sustain the proposed levy.
-5-
On November 13, 2001, respondent sent to petitioners a Form
4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other Specified
Matters. The Form 4340 was dated October 18, 2001, and related
to 1997.
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 may 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 must 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. Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000);
Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000). In the case of
such judicial review, the Court will review a taxpayer’s
liability under the de novo standard where the validity of the
underlying tax liability is at issue. The Court will review the
Commissioner’s administrative determination for abuse of
-6-
discretion where the validity of the underlying liability is not
properly at issue. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000).
Here, respondent notified petitioners that he was proposing
to levy upon their property in order to collect their Federal
income tax debt for 1997. Petitioners requested the hearing
referenced in section 6330, which was later held with Appeals.
Following the determination by Appeals that respondent’s proposed
levy was proper, petitioners sought relief in this Court.
Petitioners argue that the notices of determination were in error
because, they allege: (1) The assessment was not valid; (2) the
Appeals officer never received verification that the requirements
of applicable law and procedure had been met; (3) the underlying
tax liability was incorrect; (4) they never received a “valid”
notice of deficiency; (5) they never received a notice and demand
for payment; and (6) a frivolous return penalty under section
6702 was incorrect.
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
-7-
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). The moving party bears the burden of proving
that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual
inferences are drawn in a manner 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).
Petitioners have raised no genuine issue as to any material
fact. Accordingly, we conclude that this case is ripe for
summary judgment.
Petitioners argue that respondent failed to make a valid
assessment of their tax liability because he did not issue to
them a Form 23C, Summary Record of Assessment. They assert that
an assessment could not have been made on the basis of their tax
return because “it shows no income taxes due and owing for 1997.”
We disagree with this argument. Federal tax assessments are
formally recorded on a record of assessment. Sec. 6203. The
summary record must “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. The transcript of account received by
petitioners before the Appeals Office hearing contained all this
-8-
information. Petitioners have not demonstrated in this
proceeding any irregularity in the assessment procedure that
would raise a question about the validity of the assessment or
the information contained in the transcript of account. See Mann
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. We hold that the assessment
made by respondent is valid. See Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-51; see also Duffield v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-53.
Petitioners next argue 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). We disagree. Section 6330(c)(1)
does not require the Commissioner to rely upon a particular
document (e.g., the summary record itself rather than transcripts
of account) to satisfy this verification requirement. Kuglin v.
Commissioner, supra; see also Weishan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-88. Petitioners received a transcript of their account, and
the Appeals officer reviewed the transcript at the hearing. The
use of computer-generated transcripts of account is a valid
verification that the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure have been met. Roberts v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 365 (2002); Mudd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-204;
Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-81; Mann v. Commissioner,
supra. We hold that the Appeals officer satisfied the
-9-
verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1). Yacksyzn v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-99; cf. Nicklaus v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 117, 120-121 (2001).
Petitioners argue further that their underlying tax
liability is incorrect. We dismiss this argument as raised
inappropriately. Given that petitioners received a notice of
deficiency for the subject year, they are not allowed to contest
either the validity or the amount of their tax liability. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(B) (individuals such as petitioners may only challenge
the existence and amount of an underlying tax liability if they
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 also Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 609; Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000).
Petitioners attempt to avoid the prohibition of section
6330(c)(2)(B) by arguing that the notice of deficiency issued to
them was invalid because, they assert, it lacked a valid
signature. We consider this argument frivolous. The Secretary
or his delegate is authorized by statute to issue notices of
deficiency, secs. 6212(a), 7701(a)(11)(B) and (12)(A)(i), and it
is well established that the director of an Internal Revenue
service center is an authorized delegate, e.g., Hughes v. United
States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992); Nestor v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162 (2002); Weishan v. Commissioner,
-10-
supra. Moreover, petitioners had an opportunity to petition this
Court to dispute the liability reflected in the notice of
deficiency, but chose not to do so.
Petitioners argue further that they did not receive notice
and demand for payment. We disagree. Petitioners received
numerous notices, including the final notice. These notices
satisfied requirements of section 6303(a) by informing
petitioners of the amount owed and by requesting payment. Hughes
v. United States, supra at 531.
Petitioners argue lastly that respondent assessed a section
6702 frivolous penalty for 1997. Petitioners are mistaken. The
only penalty assessed by respondent is an accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662(a).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain respondent’s
determination as to the proposed levy as a permissible exercise
of discretion. We now turn to the requested penalty under
section 6673.
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the 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. We have indicated our willingness to impose such
penalties in collection review cases. Roberts v. Commissioner,
-11-
supra; Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000); Hoffman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-198. Moreover, we have imposed
penalties when the underlying tax liability was not at issue and
the taxpayer raised frivolous and groundless arguments as to the
legality of the Federal tax laws. Yacksyzn v. Commissioner,
supra; Watson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-213; Davis v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87. We do the same here.
Petitioners’ arguments in this Court are mainly groundless and
frivolous, and it appears to us that petitioners instituted and
maintained this proceeding primarily for delay. Pursuant to
section 6673, we require petitioners to pay to the United States
a penalty of $2,000.
We have considered all arguments made by the parties and
have found those arguments not discussed herein to be irrelevant
and/or without merit. To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered for
respondent.