T.C. Memo. 2004-106
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JERRY B. AND DONNA E. CLAWSON, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18716-02L. Filed April 23, 2004.
Mitchell I. Horowitz, for petitioners.
Michael Pesavento, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, Judge: This proceeding was commenced in response to
a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Under
Section 6330 (notice of determination). The notice of
determination sustained a proposed levy with respect to
petitioners’ unpaid income tax liabilities for 1999 and 2000.
The issue for decision is whether the Appeals officer abused his
- 2 -
discretion by sustaining a proposed levy to collect petitioners’
unpaid income tax liabilities for 1999 and 2000.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All amounts
have been rounded to the nearest dollar.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated
facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. At the
time that the petition in this case was filed, petitioners
resided in Cape Coral, Florida.
Background
Petitioners filed their joint Federal income tax return for
1999 on or about October 15, 2000, and their joint Federal income
tax return for 2000 in October 2001 showing balances due. As of
July 17, 2002, petitioners’ unpaid income tax liabilities for
1999 and 2000, including accruals of interest and penalties,
exceeded $385,000 and $64,000, respectively.
In March 2001, petitioners retained a certified public
accountant, David B. McKinnon (McKinnon), to represent them
before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in connection with the
collection of their tax liabilities. On or about March 28, 2001,
petitioners filed a Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration
- 3 -
of Representative, designating McKinnon, Rance D. Hall, and
R. Glenn Kirk, C.P.A., as their representatives.
On May 9, 2001, petitioner Jerry B. Clawson (Clawson), by
signed stipulation and consent, agreed to the entry of an Order
of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief As To Jerold Benjamin
Clawson (order of permanent injunction) by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia in an action brought
against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The
order of permanent injunction restrained and enjoined Clawson
from further violations of various securities laws. The order of
permanent injunction also required Clawson to pay disgorgement in
the amount of $2,700,000, which represented Clawson’s gains from
the conduct that had been alleged in the complaint brought
against him by the SEC. Payment of disgorgement in excess of
$558,000 and prejudgment interest thereon was waived, however,
based upon representations made by Clawson to the SEC in January
2001 as to his financial condition. The entire balance of the
$558,000 disgorgement debt was to be paid by Clawson within
2 years of the entry of the order of permanent injunction (i.e.,
by May 9, 2003).
The order of permanent injunction also included a section
entitled “Modification of the Freeze” that provided as follows:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the freeze on Clawson’s
assets, which was earlier imposed by order of this
Court, shall be modified as follows: Clawson is
allowed to liquidate non-cash assets provided notice
- 4 -
prior to the liquidation of the assets is given to the
Commission [SEC] staff, and the Commission [SEC] is
given an opportunity to object [to] such liquidation,
and that the proceeds from the liquidation of any such
assets remain subject to the freeze. Clawson shall be
allowed to borrow against his Florida homestead. The
freeze shall also be modified to allow the Hatteras
boat owned by Clawson to be placed in a charter fleet,
for the purpose of generating income for Clawson to pay
his disgorgement, or to otherwise preserve assets. The
freeze shall be completely lifted as to Clawson at the
time that his disgorgement obligation is retired,
provided he is in compliance with all other orders of
the Court.
Review by Revenue Officer Riley
On or about July 30, 2001, Revenue Officer Vicki Riley
(Riley) was assigned to collect petitioners’ unpaid income tax
liability for 1999. On August 7, 2001, Riley contacted
petitioners by mail and by telephone to schedule an appointment
for the purpose of obtaining financial information from them.
Riley requested that petitioners complete a Form 433-A,
Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-
Employed Individuals (individual CIS).
On August 24, 2001, petitioners signed an individual CIS and
submitted it to Riley. On their individual CIS, petitioners
disclosed assets and equity, in pertinent part, as follows:
Asset Current Value Encumbrance Net Value
First Union Bank checking acct. $3,000 None $3,000
First Union Bank checking acct. 2,000 None 2,000
Fidelity Investments acct. 27,000 None 27,000
Investment (Sanibel-Captiva 200,000 $180,000 20,000
Airport Shuttle, Inc.)
Anticipated increase in income 500,000 None 500,000
1999 Chevrolet Suburban 30,000 25,000 5,000
1996 BMW 328 25,000 None 25,000
- 5 -
46-foot Trojan yacht 100,000 71,000 29,000
61-foot Hatteras yacht 600,000 410,000 190,000
30-foot Fountain yacht 55,000 33,000 22,000
Real estate 1,450,000 1,150,000 300,000
Real estate 330,000 250,000 80,000
Real estate 7,000 None 7,000
Furniture/personal effects 25,000 None 25,000
Business assets–-Equipment 2,000 None 2,000
Accounts/notes receivable 2,850/mo. None 2,850/mo.
The instructions for the individual CIS directed petitioners to
indicate the current value of their assets, i.e., the amount for
which they could sell their assets as of that date.
The real estate valued at $1,450,000 on petitioners’
individual CIS is their residence in Cape Coral, Florida (Cape
Coral property). Petitioners acquired the Cape Coral property in
November 1999 for $675,000. According to their individual CIS,
petitioners had an outstanding mortgage balance of $1,150,000 on
the Cape Coral property and a monthly mortgage payment of $9,384
as of August 24, 2001. On August 19, 2001, 5 days prior to
submitting their individual CIS to Riley, petitioners listed the
Cape Coral property for sale with Arvida Realty Services (Arvida)
at a price of $2,700,000.
In addition to submitting their individual CIS to Riley on
August 24, 2001, petitioners submitted the order of permanent
injunction and four Forms 433-B, Collection Information Statement
for Businesses. The Forms 433-B described business entities
controlled and/or operated by petitioners.
On September 19, 2001, McKinnon proposed an installment
agreement to Riley in which petitioners would pay $1,000 per
- 6 -
month for 18 months, with the remaining amount of their income
tax liability to be paid at the end of the 18-month period. At
the time that petitioners proposed this installment agreement to
Riley, Riley had determined that the total amount of their unpaid
tax liabilities was $645,537. This figure included the reported
but unpaid income tax liability on petitioners’ joint Federal
income tax return for 1999 and trust fund penalties that had been
imposed against each of them for 1991. Based upon the financial
information petitioners submitted to Riley, she determined that
petitioners had the ability to pay the total amount of their
unpaid tax liabilities sooner than the amount of time requested
in the proposed installment agreement. Accordingly, Riley
rejected petitioners’ proposed installment agreement.
On September 19, 2001, petitioners also submitted a
Form 9423, Collection Appeal Request, in which they requested
that respondent not file a Federal tax lien. Petitioners
provided, in pertinent part, the following explanation for their
request:
Taxpayer is working to sell the assets reported on
Forms 433-A and 433-B * * *. Taxpayer believes that a
substantial portion of such assets can be sold by
December 31, 2001 and that all can be disposed of
within the next twelve months. These sales would
provide funds to satisfy the tax liability in question.
Filing a tax lien would materially reduce the market
value of the assets to be sold and cause the banks to
call loans on which most of these assets are pledged.
That would put the taxpayer out of business with no
resources to pay the tax liability.
- 7 -
We respectfully request that taxpayer be allowed a
reasonable time to sell these assets in order to
generate the funds necessary to satisfy this tax
obligation.
On September 20, 2001, Riley informed McKinnon that
petitioners’ proposed installment agreement had been forwarded to
an independent reviewer. Riley suggested to McKinnon that
petitioners commence good faith payments of $1,000 per month in
the event that the independent reviewer approved the proposed
installment agreement. On September 21, 2001, the independent
reviewer concurred in Riley’s decision to reject petitioners’
proposed installment agreement.
On October 4, 2001, Riley received a letter in response to a
request that she had made to the IRS Office of Chief Counsel for
an opinion with respect to the issue of whether the judgment
rendered in favor of the SEC against Clawson (i.e., the $558,000
disgorgement debt) would have priority over the IRS if the IRS
chose not to file a notice of Federal tax lien in its efforts to
collect petitioners’ unpaid income tax liability for 1999. That
letter, in pertinent part, provided the following explanation to
Riley:
In the present case, if the SEC has taken the
steps necessary to perfect its lien against whatever
property the Service might wish to look to for
collection, it will have priority since the government
has not yet filed a notice of federal tax lien. If the
SEC has not yet taken such steps, but does so in the
future before a notice of federal tax lien is filed, it
similarly will enjoy priority. The only way that the
government can ensure that it will prevail with respect
- 8 -
to the taxpayer’s property is if the SEC has taken no
steps to perfect its judgment and the Internal Revenue
Service chooses to file a notice of federal tax lien.
On October 23, 2001, Riley received a payment from
petitioners in the amount of $1,000. Petitioners designated this
payment to be applied against their income tax liability for
2000, and Riley applied it against that liability.
On December 19, 2001, Riley received a $2,000 payment from
petitioners. This payment was applied to petitioners’ income tax
liability for 1999.
Petitioners obtained the SEC’s permission to sell their
61-foot Hatteras yacht for $550,000 in December 2001.
Petitioners used the proceeds of this sale to pay off the debt
that encumbered the yacht (which was listed on their individual
CIS as $410,000) and to pay for their living expenses. None of
the proceeds of this sale were used towards the payment of
petitioners’ income tax liabilities for 1999 or 2000.
On February 4, 2002, Riley received two separate payments of
$1,000 each from petitioners. Both payments were applied to
petitioners’ income tax liability for 1999.
On March 19, 2002, Riley received a $2,000 payment from
petitioners. This payment was applied to petitioners’ income tax
liability for 1999.
On or about April 4, 2002, Riley faxed a message to McKinnon
seeking an explanation of how the filing of a Federal tax lien
- 9 -
would destroy petitioners’ ability to pay their tax liabilities
and how petitioners would be able to pay those liabilities in
full in 18 months. On or about April 6, 2002, McKinnon faxed a
response to Riley. McKinnon’s response stated, in pertinent
part:
If a tax lien is filed, taxpayer’s lenders will
call the notes on which taxpayer’s assets are pledged.
This would put the taxpayer out of business with no
resources to pay the IRS.
Taxpayer believes that he will be able to sell the
encumbered assets within the next 18 months and clear
enough to pay the IRS in full.
On July 17, 2002, Riley issued a Final Notice-Notice of
Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right To a Hearing (final
notice) to each petitioner for their unpaid income tax
liabilities for 1999 and 2000. Clawson’s final notice included
the unpaid amount of the trust fund penalty that had been imposed
against him for 1991. Riley sent a copy of the final notice to
McKinnon along with a letter that provided the following
explanation:
We are taking this action because the taxpayer has not
made Estimated Tax payments for 2000, 2001, nor 2002.
He has only paid seven of ten promised payments toward
the liability as you had suggested in September of
2001. According to the 2000 Income Tax return, he has
increased his liability substantially via a capital
gain that was not used to pay his tax obligation.
On July 31, 2002, the IRS Office of Appeals denied
petitioners’ Collection Appeal Request of September 19, 2001.
- 10 -
Proceedings Before Appeals Officer Luhmann
On August 6, 2002, petitioners timely filed a Form 12153,
Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, in which they
objected to both the proposed levy action and the filing of a
Federal tax lien with respect to their unpaid income tax
liabilities for 1999 and 2000. At the time that petitioners
filed Form 12153, no Federal tax lien had been filed against
them. In the Form 12153, McKinnon disclosed that petitioners
were continuing their efforts to sell the Cape Coral property.
Taxpayers are in the process of selling their personal
residence. * * *
Anticipated proceeds, after satisfaction of existing
mortgages, should be sufficient to pay the amount owed
the IRS.
McKinnon attached to the Form 12153 a copy of the listing
agreement that petitioners had entered into with Arvida for the
sale of the Cape Coral property. Appeals Officer Monty Luhmann
(Luhmann), respondent’s settlement officer in the St. Paul,
Minnesota, Appeals Office, received petitioners’ request for a
hearing on or about August 27, 2002.
On September 27, 2002, Luhmann sent a letter to petitioners
offering a telephonic hearing or, in the alternative, to transfer
their case to Florida for a face-to-face meeting. This letter
also set forth the following information:
When we meet to discuss your case, our meeting will be
informal and you may present facts, arguments, and
legal authority to support your position. We will
- 11 -
discuss the law and how it applies to the facts in your
case. The primary purpose of this hearing is to verify
all legal and procedural requirements were followed in
proposing the collection action for the periods listed
above. Additionally, the consideration of less
intrusive collection alternatives will be a focus of
this hearing. Please be prepared to discuss any
alternative that you wish for me to consider in an
effort to resolve your case.
In addition, Luhmann advised petitioners that they were not
entitled to a hearing on the filing of a Federal tax lien because
no such lien had been filed.
By letter dated October 2, 2002, petitioners elected to hold
a telephonic hearing, which was subsequently held on October 21,
2002, between Luhmann and McKinnon.
On October 25, 2002, respondent filed a Notice of Federal
Tax Lien against petitioners for their unpaid income tax
liabilities for 1999 and 2000 in the public records of Lee
County, Florida. Petitioners were notified of the filing of the
Federal tax lien as required under section 6320, but they did not
request that a hearing be held with respect to the filing of that
lien.
On October 30, 2002, Luhmann issued a notice of
determination to each petitioner in which he sustained the
proposed levy to collect petitioners’ unpaid income tax
liabilities for 1999 and 2000. Luhmann also issued a separate
notice of determination to Clawson in which he sustained the
proposed levy to collect the unpaid portion of the trust fund
- 12 -
penalty that had been imposed against him for 1991 (a matter not
before us or within our jurisdiction). Luhmann provided, in
pertinent part, the following explanation for sustaining the
proposed levy:
The Revenue Officer advised you of pending enforcement
action on 08/15/01. After you failed to sell your
house to satisfy this liability, the Revenue Officer
proceeded to issue the Notice of Intent to Levy.
LT1058 Notice of Intent to Levy was issued by certified
mail to your last known address. The Revenue Officer
had a levy source and levy was the next anticipated
action. The Revenue Officer followed the legal and
administrative requirements necessary for issuing a
Notice of Intent to Levy.
* * * * * * *
Issues raised by the taxpayer:
On an attachment to Form 12153, you raised the issue of
selling your house as an alternative to collection
action. Your power of attorney raised this issue
during your hearing on 10/21/02 and requested more time
to sell your second home, valued at $2.9 million. A
copy of the listing agreement shows that this property
has been on the market since September of 2001. I
recognize that it takes longer to sell a home valued at
$2.9 million than it would to sell a home priced at the
median value in your market. Even so, thirteen months
should have been sufficient to either sell or borrow
against the property. Your power of attorney advised
me during your hearing that you borrowed against the
property to meet your expenses in the last year.
* * * * * * *
Balancing the need for efficient collection with the
taxpayer concern that the collection action be no more
intrusive than necessary:
Revenue Officer Vicki Riley has been working with you
since August of 2001 to see that this liability is
paid. I can find no compelling reason to further delay
the collection of this account. There is sufficient
- 13 -
equity in your second home to pay this liability in
full either through the sale of the property or through
a cash-out loan against the property. To delay
collection further would risk the collection of this
liability.
Perhaps you should consider lowering your asking price
or consulting with your real estate agent to see what
you can do to expedite a voluntary sale of the
property. If you are unable or unwilling to borrow
against or sell the property to satisfy the IRS, then
the IRS has no choice but to proceed to collect this
account through levy action.
Petitioners timely petitioned the Court under section
6330(d) from their notices of determination for the unpaid income
tax liabilities for 1999 and 2000.
OPINION
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
collect such tax by levy upon property belonging to the taxpayer.
Section 6331(d) provides that the Secretary is obliged to provide
the taxpayer with notice, including notice of the administrative
appeals available to the taxpayer, before proceeding with
collection by levy on the taxpayer’s property. Section 6330
generally provides that respondent cannot proceed with the
collection of taxes by way of a levy on a taxpayer’s property
until the taxpayer has been given notice of and the opportunity
for an administrative review of the matter (in the form of an
Appeals Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial
- 14 -
review of the administrative determination. Section
6330(c)(2)(A) specifies issues that the taxpayer may raise at the
hearing. The taxpayer is allowed to raise “any relevant issue
relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy” including
spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection
action, and alternatives to collection. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).
Section 6330(c)(3) provides that the determination of the Appeals
officer shall take into consideration the verification under
section 6330(c)(1), the issues raised by the taxpayer, and
whether the proposed collection action balances the need for the
efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the
taxpayer that any collection action be no more intrusive than
necessary. Where, as here, liability for the underlying tax is
not disputed, we review the Appeals officer’s determination for
abuse of discretion. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182
(2000).
At trial of this case in September 2003, petitioners offered
into evidence a First Supplemental Stipulation of Facts
(supplemental stipulation). The supplemental stipulation
referred to exhibits that were not before Luhmann at the time of
petitioners’ section 6330 hearing and were not a part of the
administrative record in this case. Respondent objected to the
supplemental stipulation’s being received into evidence on the
grounds that the exhibits referred to therein were not a part of
- 15 -
the administrative record. The exhibits referred to in the
supplemental stipulation include petitioners’ income tax returns
for 1998 through 2001; two orders by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia in the case of SEC v. Phoenix
Telecom, LLC that are dated in August 2000; the opinion rendered
in the case of SEC v. ETS Payphones, Inc., 300 F.3d 1281 (11th
Cir. 2002); an order by the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida in the case of William & Hazel Barclay v.
Phoenix Telecom, LLC that is dated in October 2002; a listing
agreement between petitioners and Century 21 Sunbelt Realty, Inc.
for the sale of the Cape Coral property that is dated in
September 2002; an appraisal of $2,900,000 for the Cape Coral
property that is dated in October 2002; three different
advertisements for the Cape Coral property that are dated between
December 2002 and August 2003; and a marketing service report for
the sale of the Cape Coral property that shows activity through
August 1, 2003. Respondent also objected to the testimony
offered by Clawson at trial. The Court noted respondent’s
objection but allowed testimony to proceed.
Respondent contends that we should not consider the
supplemental stipulation, the trial testimony, or any other
matters that were not presented to Luhmann because they are not a
part of the administrative record in this case. For the reasons
- 16 -
set forth below, we sustain Luhmann’s determination whether or
not we consider the additional evidence.
The sole issue raised by petitioners at their section 6330
hearing was an offer of a collection alternative. The collection
alternative proposed by petitioners involved postponing the levy
to allow petitioners to sell the Cape Coral property at some
unspecified point in the future for its market value,
approximately $2,700,000. (As of the time of trial in September
2003, the Cape Coral property had not been sold.)
Petitioners argue that Luhmann abused his discretion by
rejecting their proposed collection alternative because he failed
to take into consideration the impact of the events of
September 11, 2001, on petitioners’ ability to sell the Cape
Coral property. Moreover, petitioners argue that Luhmann abused
his discretion by sustaining the proposed levy because he (1) did
not request updated financial information from petitioners in his
letter of September 27, 2002; (2) did not give greater
consideration to the impact of the order of permanent injunction
on petitioners’ ability to pay their income tax liabilities for
1999 and 2000; (3) did not include any notes from his telephonic
meeting with McKinnon on October 21, 2002, in the administrative
record; and (4) reached his decision to sustain the proposed levy
in “barely one month” from the time that he contacted
- 17 -
petitioners. As we discuss below, petitioners’ arguments are not
persuasive.
Clawson testified as to, inter alia, the “soft” real estate
market since the Cape Coral property had been listed for sale in
August 2001, petitioners’ inability to borrow any further against
the Cape Coral property, petitioners’ business dealings between
August 2001 and October 2002, and his understanding of the order
of permanent injunction and the modified asset freeze contained
therein. Much of Clawson’s testimony, on cross-examination,
admitted dispositions of assets and increased borrowing against
the Cape Coral property without application of any of the
proceeds to petitioners’ tax obligations. This evidence, had it
been presented to Luhmann, is not likely to have changed his
determination and does not show an abuse of discretion. See,
e.g., Pless v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-24.
There is no requirement that an Appeals officer take notes
at a section 6330 hearing, and there is neither requirement nor
reason that the Appeals officer wait a certain amount of time
before rendering his determination as to a proposed levy. See
sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; sec.
301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E9, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Moreover, Riley
worked with petitioners for more than 1 year before their case
was assigned to Luhmann. Accordingly, we reject petitioners’
argument that Luhmann abused his discretion on those grounds.
- 18 -
Based upon our review of the relevant evidence in this case,
we conclude that Luhmann did not abuse his discretion by
rejecting petitioners’ proposed collection alternative.
Consequently, we further conclude that Luhmann did not abuse his
discretion by sustaining the proposed levy to collect
petitioners’ unpaid income tax liabilities for 1999 and 2000.
We have considered the arguments of the parties that were
not specifically addressed in this opinion. Those arguments are
either without merit or irrelevant to our decision.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.