T.C. Memo. 2004-104
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JUNE H. GINALSKI, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 12522-03L. Filed April 22, 2004.
June H. Ginalski, pro se.
Rachael J. Zepeda, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GERBER, Judge: This matter arises, under section 6320,1 out
of respondent’s filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien with
respect to petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 income tax liabilities.
The sole issue presented for our consideration is whether
1
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the periods under consideration.
- 2 -
petitioner is entitled to question the underlying merits of her
1993 and 1994 income tax liabilities.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
June H. Ginalski, petitioner, resided in Phoenix, Arizona,
at the time her petition was filed. Upon notification that
respondent had filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien with respect to
petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 income tax liabilities, petitioner
timely requested a hearing before an Appeals officer. At the
hearing, petitioner sought to question the underlying merits of
her 1993 and 1994 tax liabilities which, to some extent, involved
whether amounts received by petitioner in connection with a
divorce were income to her. Petitioner did not wish to discuss
collection alternatives or other collection-related matters.
The Appeals officer refused to discuss the merits of the
underlying liabilities because petitioner had received a notice
of deficiency for her 1993 and 1994 tax years and had filed a
petition with this Court. After a trial on the merits of her
1993 and 1994 income tax, it was held in a Tax Court Summary
Opinion that the amounts petitioner received during 1993 and 1994
from her divorce proceeding were taxable to petitioner for those
years. Pursuant to this Court’s decision, respondent assessed
1
At trial, the parties stipulated facts and exhibits and
presented oral argument.
- 3 -
the 1993 and 1994 income tax liabilities, which are the
liabilities for which notice of lien has been filed.
Respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330, and
petitioner filed a timely petition with this Court.
OPINION
Section 6330 provides that, upon request and in the
circumstances described therein, a taxpayer has a right to a
“fair hearing”. Sec. 6330(b). A “fair hearing” consists of the
following elements: (1) An impartial officer will conduct the
hearing; (2) the conducting officer will receive verification
from the Secretary that the requirements of applicable law and
administrative procedure have been met; (3) certain issues may be
heard such as spousal defenses and offers-in-compromise; and (4)
a challenge to the underlying liability may be raised if the
taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency or
otherwise receive an opportunity to dispute such liability. Sec.
6330(c).
In that regard, section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that a
taxpayer may raise issues concerning the underlying tax liability
in a proceeding under section 6330 where the taxpayer did not
receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity
to dispute the tax liability. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
604 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). Because
- 4 -
petitioner received a notice of deficiency, petitioned this Court
for relief, and a final decision was entered, she was not
entitled to contest the merits of the underlying liability at her
section 6330 hearing.
Petitioner contends that the Summary Opinion issued to her
states on its face that it is not appealable and that it is not
precedent for any other case. In particular, Summary Opinions of
this Court contain the caveat: “[The] case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at the time that the petition was filed. The decision to
be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
should not be cited as authority.” Petitioner has mistakenly
interpreted that caveat to mean that the outcome of her Tax Court
proceeding involving the same taxable years (1993 and 1994) is
not binding with respect to her proceeding under sections 6320
and 6330. Although this Court’s decision for petitioner’s 1993
and 1994 tax years is not precedential for any other case, it is
final and determinative as it relates to petitioner’s liability
for those years. It appears that petitioner believes that the
limitation on citing Summary Opinions as precedent deprives them
of the effect of res judicata. In any event, the fact that
petitioner had an opportunity to contest the merits of the 1993
and 1994 liabilities triggers the limitation on raising such
matters again before Appeals or in this proceeding in our Court.
- 5 -
See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v.
Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner does not contend that there was an abuse of
discretion on any matter other than respondent’s refusal to
consider the underlying merits of the 1993 and 1994 tax
liabilities. Petitioner believes that, if given the opportunity,
she could show that respondent’s position and this Court’s prior
holding, with respect to the underlying merits of the tax
liability, are in error.
Accordingly, the sole question we consider is whether, in
these circumstances, respondent has abused his discretion in
refusing to consider the underlying merits of petitioner’s tax
liability for the years 1993 and 1994. Sections 6320 and 6330
provide for a hearing in connection with certain collection
activity by respondent, in this instance the filing of a Notice
of Federal Tax Lien. Under section 6330(c)(2)(B) a taxpayer may
raise the merits of the underlying liability if the taxpayer “did
not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax
liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
such tax liability.” It is clear in this case that petitioner
received a statutory notice of deficiency and did have an
opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Under the statute, it
does not matter whether petitioner may now be able to show that
- 6 -
the outcome or holding resulting from that opportunity may have
been in error.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for
respondent.