T.C. Memo. 2005-158
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DEBORAH CARMAN GOODIN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 8218-04L. Filed June 28, 2005.
Deborah Carman Goodin, pro se.
J. Craig Young, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respon-
dent’s motion for summary judgment (respondent’s motion for
summary judgment) and respondent’s motion for a penalty under
section 66731 (respondent’s motion for a penalty). (We shall
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
(continued...)
- 2 -
refer collectively to respondent’s motion for summary judgment
and respondent’s motion for a penalty as respondent’s motions.)
We shall grant respondent’s motions.
Background
The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the
following.
Petitioner resided in Garner, North Carolina, at the time
she filed the petition in this case.
On February 11, 2002, respondent issued to petitioner a
notice of deficiency (notice of deficiency) with respect to her
taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999. In that notice of defi-
ciency, respondent determined a deficiency in, and additions to,
petitioner’s Federal income tax (tax), as follows:
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(f) Sec. 6651(a)(2) Sec. 6654(a)
*
1997 $14,644 $10,471 $771
*
1998 5,842 4,162 262
*
1999 6,759 4,801 319
*
In the notice of deficiency, respondent stated:
The amount of the addition to tax cannot be determined
at this time, and an addition to tax of 0.5 percent
will be imposed for each additional month, or fraction
thereof, of nonpayment, up to 22.5 percent as provided
by section 6651(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code for
the taxable years ended December 31, 1997; December 31,
1998; and December 31, 1999.
Petitioner did not file a petition with the Court with
1
(...continued)
(Code) in effect at all relevant times. All Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
respect to the notice of deficiency relating to her taxable years
1997, 1998, and 1999.
On July 8, 2002, respondent assessed petitioner’s tax, as
well as additions to tax and interest as provided by law, for
each of her taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999. (We shall refer
to those unpaid assessed amounts, as well as interest as provided
by law accrued after July 8, 2002, as petitioner’s unpaid liabil-
ities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.)
Respondent issued to petitioner the notice and demand for
payment as required by section 6303(a) with respect to peti-
tioner’s unpaid liabilities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.
On March 24, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a notice
of Federal tax lien filing and your right to a hearing (notice of
tax lien) with respect to petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for
1997, 1998, and 1999.
On or about April 6, 2003, in response to the notice of tax
lien, petitioner filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due
Process Hearing (Form 12153), and requested a hearing with
respondent’s Appeals Office (Appeals Office). The following is
the only explanation that petitioner provided in her Form 12153
for her disagreement with respondent’s proposed collection
action: “Mathmaticly [sic] incorrect”.
On a date not disclosed by the record, a settlement officer
with the Appeals Office (settlement officer) held a telephonic
- 4 -
Appeals Office hearing with petitioner with respect to the notice
of tax lien. In connection with the telephonic Appeals Office
hearing, the settlement officer relied on transcripts of peti-
tioner’s accounts with respect to petitioner’s taxable years
1997, 1998, and 1999.
On a date not disclosed by the record, respondent sent to
petitioner by facsimile (respondent’s facsimile) pertinent
sections of the Code, the income tax regulations, and various
court cases which establish that petitioner is obligated to pay
tax, as well as any additions to tax and interest as provided by
law, for each of her taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999.
On March 10, 2004, in response to respondent’s facsimile,
petitioner sent to respondent by facsimile a letter (petitioner’s
March 10, 2004 letter) that stated in pertinent part:
I specified on form 12153 that the notice of * * * lien
were Mathematically incorrect. And my question to you
was; Where is the statute and implementing regulation
that makes me liable for the penalty or tax? * * * I
have a copy of the IRC and the part of the Index, in
the front under the subject of “Liability for tax”
doesn’t even mention Subtitles A through C income
taxes. I have been looking at the laws and IRC Statues
and Regulations and they show I’m not liable, but
absolutely none that show that I am. I am not refusing
to pay I will gladly pay as you are requesting if you
would please show me the law that says I have “gross
income” form a taxable “situs” under 26 CFR § 1.861-
8(f) that is legally considered as “taxable income”.
Please just show me the amount of tax I owe in a way
that is consistent with Section 861 of the IRC and the
implementing regulation and statute. [Reproduced liter-
ally.]
On April 16, 2004, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a
- 5 -
notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under
section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination). A document
that was attached to and incorporated in that notice of determi-
nation stated in pertinent part:
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
The taxpayer submitted a timely request for a Collec-
tion Due Process Hearing in response to the notice of
lien filing.
The taxpayer’s request for a Due Process Hearing stated
“Mathmaticaly incorrect” Since she received a statutory
notice of deficiency, she was told that she could not
dispute the liability under collection due process, and
the audit reconsideration process was explained to her.
Publication 3598 was also sent to her. In her phone
conference, the taxpayer stated that she would pay the
tax if we could show her that she was liable for the
tax. Appeals faxed her code, regulations and court
cases, but her response by letter dated 3/10/2004
states “I have a copy of the IRC and the part of the
Index, in the front under the subject of ‘Liability for
Tax’ doesn’t even mention Subtitles A through C income
taxes. I have been looking for the laws and IRC Stat-
utes and Regulations and they show I am not liable, but
absolutely none of them show that I am. I am not
refusing to pay as you are requesting if you would
please show me that the law says I have ‘gross income’
form a taxable ‘situs’ under 26 CFR section 1.861-8(f)
that is legally considered as ‘taxable’ income.” These
arguments are frivolous and need not be addressed
further, as the information she requested has been
provided to her. The taxpayer has not provided any
documentation or collection alternatives.
Applicable Law and Administrative Procedures
With the best information available, the requirements
of various applicable law or administrative procedures
have been met.
IRC § 6321 creates a lien on the taxpayer’s property if
the taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay the tax after
the tax is assessed and after notice and demand for
- 6 -
payment, at his last known address, as provided for in
IRC § 6303. Review of transcripts have confirmed the
tax was assessed 7/8/2002, and notice and demand was
mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address, and
there is still a balance due.
IRC section 6320(a) provides that the IRS will notify a
taxpayer of the filing of a NFTL and of the right to a
hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals with respect
to the filing of NFTL. Such notification was mailed to
you 3/24/2003.
* * * * * * *
This Appeals Officer has had no prior involvement with
respect to these liabilities.
Relevant Issues Presented by the Taxpayer
The request for a Collection Process Due Hearing filed
by the taxpayer stated “mathmaticaly incorrect.” The
taxpayer did not file a return, and does not believe
that she has “gross income” or owes the tax. A proper
assessment was made on 07/08/2002 after mailing the
Statutory Notice of Deficiency to the taxpayer’s last
know address on 2/11/2002. She has been given the
opportunity to dispute the assessment before it was
made. No alternative to the filing of the NFTL was
suggested.
Balancing the Efficient Tax Collection with Concern
Regarding Intrusiveness
Appeals has verified, or received verification, that
applicable laws and administrative procedures have been
met; has considered the issues raised, and has balanced
the proposed collection action with the legitimate
concerns that such action be no more intrusive than
necessary as required by IRC 6330(c)(3). The case will
be returned to compliance for any action they deem
appropriate.
The filing of the lien, in this case, properly balances
the need for efficient collection action with concerns
over the level of intrusiveness necessary to accomplish
collection of the liability. It is Appeals determina-
tion that Compliance properly followed all procedures
and properly filed the lien.
- 7 -
* * * * * * *
Summary of Determination
Appeals has verified, or received verification, that
applicable laws and administrative procedures have been
met, has considered the issues raised and has balanced
the proposed collection action with the legitimate
concerns that such action be no more intrusive than
necessary as required by Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
section 6320.
• Your request for a Collection Due Process
(CDP) hearing was timely filed; accordingly,
you were entitled to a CDP Hearing for the
filing of the lien,
• We have held a Collection Due Process (CDP)
hearing by phone with the Appeals officer,
Kathryn A. Lester, your Power of Attorney,
John Turner and you, Deborah C. Goodin,
• You stated that the liability was
“Mathmaticaly incorrect,” that your wages and
other income are not “gross income” and are
not subject to tax,
• The service has issued a statutory notice of
deficiency to you on 2/11/2002, which de-
faulted since you did not petition the court
by 5/12/2002,
• You cannot dispute the liability under col-
lection due process since you have previously
been given the opportunity to dispute the
liability,
• The tax assessments were made on 7/8/2002,
• You have not raised any collection alterna-
tives,
• Therefore, the proposed lien action balances
the efficient collection of taxes with the
taxpayer’s legitimate concern that the col-
lection action be no more intrusive than
necessary.
The Appeals Office sustains the filing of the lien.
The case will be returned to the Compliance Office for
appropriate collection actions. [Reproduced liter-
ally.]
Petitioner filed a petition with the Court with respect to
- 8 -
the notice of determination relating to petitioner’s unpaid
liabilities for 1997, 1998, and 1999. The attachment to the
petition (petitioner’s attachment to the petition) that we
consider to be part of the petition contained statements, conten-
tions, arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivo-
lous and/or groundless.2
On or about November 11, 2004, after petitioner filed her
petition with the Court, petitioner sent to respondent a document
entitled “Notice Of Response In The Form Of an Affidavit Under 5
USC” (petitioner’s November 11, 2004 affidavit). Petitioner’s
November 11, 2004 affidavit contained statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivolous
and/or groundless.3
In response to petitioner’s November 11, 2004 affidavit,
respondent sent a letter to petitioner dated January 11, 2005
2
The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests in petitioner’s attachment to the peti-
tion are similar to the frivolous and/or groundless statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests in petitions filed by
certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court. See, e.g.,
Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-131; Copeland v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-46.
3
Petitioner’s November 11, 2004 affidavit contained state-
ments, contentions, arguments, and requests that are similar to
the types of statements, contentions, arguments, and requests
contained in the documents that certain other taxpayers with
cases in the Court have sent to the Internal Revenue Service.
See, e.g., Copeland v. Commissioner, supra; Smith v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45.
- 9 -
(respondent’s January 11, 2005 letter), which stated in pertinent
part:
On November 12, 2004, our office received a docu-
ment from you captioned “Notice of Response In the Form
of An Affidavit Under 5 USC.” This document asserts
frivolous arguments related to your liability for the
unpaid taxes, and demands that our office answer ques-
tions and produce documents pursuant to Tax Court Rules
71 and 72. * * *
* * * * * * *
Our office is prepared to discuss any relevant
issues. However, we are under no obligation to discuss
frivolous issues such as those raised by you in the
Petition in this case. Furthermore, many of your
arguments relate to whether you in fact owe the 1997,
1998, and 1999 federal income taxes assessed against
you by the IRS. On February 11, 2002, the IRS mailed a
statutory notice of deficiency for these income taxes
to your last known address. A complete copy of this
notice of deficiency is enclosed. You in fact received
this notice of deficiency. See “Notice of Response...”
(wherein you state “I responded by letter to the Notice
of Deficiency...”). Because you received a notice of
deficiency for your 1997, 1998, and 1999 income taxes,
you are prohibited from disputing either the existence
and amounts of these tax liabilities in this proceed-
ing. I.R.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B).
* * * * * * *
Under I.R.C. § 6673, the Court may award a penalty
to the United States in an amount up to $25,000 when
the proceeding has been instituted or maintained by a
taxpayer primarily for delay, or if the taxpayer’s
position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000),
this Court issued an unequivocal warning to taxpayers
concerning the imposition of damages under section 6673
on those taxpayers who abuse the protections afforded
by section 6320 and 6330. Furthermore, in later
lien/levy cases, this Court has imposed section 6673
damages against taxpayers who asserted frivolous argu-
ments. See, e.g., Bradshear [sic] v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-196. If you continue to assert frivo-
- 10 -
lous arguments in this proceeding, our office will
request the Tax Court to impose damages against you
under section 6673.
On March 11, 2005, respondent sent a letter to petitioner
(respondent’s March 11, 2005 letter), which stated in pertinent
part:
Enclosed is a copy of a recent opinion, Kilgore v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-24 (filed February 15,
2005). In Kilgore, the Tax Court granted respondent’s
motion for summary judgment, and in doing so, rejected
as frivolous many of the same arguments you have made
in your case. The Tax Court also granted respondent’s
motion for damages under section 6673, and ordered the
petitioner in Kilgore to pay the United States a pen-
alty of $10,000.
In response to respondent’s March 11, 2005 letter, on a date
not disclosed by the record in March 2005, petitioner sent to
respondent another affidavit entitled “PETITION Private Redress
of Grievance in the Absence of Judicial Process In the form of An
Affidavit With Imperative Need for Response” (petitioner’s March
2005 affidavit), which stated in pertinent part:
This is in response to your notice dated March
11th, 2005. I have found talking with you to be very
difficult. Affiant seeks a bill which Mr. Young and
the Corporate United States, state Affiant owes.
Send me a certified bill that the federal govern-
ment says I owe which is verified per Black’s Law
Dictionary and that you have personal knowledge con-
cerning this debt.
Affiant is sending this petition to avoid Judicial
Process and objects to Motion for Summary Judgment.
Do you not realize the hardship and duress you and
your organization place on people. The tremendous debt
already established and placed on Affiant through
- 11 -
Internal Revenue Service, North Carolina Department of
Revenue, fuel bills and other obligations just to name
a few. Time is stolen from family and friends.
On June 13, 2005, petitioner filed with the Court a motion
to dismiss, which the Court denied. Petitioner’s motion to
dismiss contained statements, contentions, arguments, and re-
quests that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.4
Discussion
The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no
genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as
a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). We
conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact
regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion for summary
judgment.
Petitioner did not file a petition with the Court with
respect to the notice of deficiency that respondent issued to her
relating to her taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999. Where, as is
the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is
not properly placed at issue, the Court will review the determi-
nation of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue for abuse of
4
The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests in petitioner’s motion to dismiss are
similar to the frivolous and/or groundless statements, conten-
tions, arguments, and requests in documents filed by certain
other taxpayers with cases in the Court. See, e.g., Fink v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-61; Smith v. Commissioner, supra.
- 12 -
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
As was true of petitioner’s March 10, 2004 letter, peti-
tioner’s attachment to the petition, petitioner’s November 11,
2004 affidavit, petitioner’s March 2005 affidavit, and peti-
tioner’s motion to dismiss, petitioner’s position in petitioner’s
response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment (peti-
tioner’s response) and petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s
response is frivolous and/or groundless.5
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in
determining to proceed with the collection action as determined
in the notice of determination with respect to petitioner’s
unpaid liabilities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.
In respondent’s motion for a penalty, respondent requests
that the Court require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United
States pursuant to section 6673(a)(1). Section 6673(a)(1)
authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United
States a penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it
appears to the Court, inter alia, that a proceeding before it was
5
The statements, contentions, arguments, and requests set
forth in petitioner’s response are similar to the statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by
certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for
summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See,
e.g., Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45.
- 13 -
instituted or maintained primarily for delay, sec. 6673(a)(1)(A),
or that the taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is frivolous
or groundless, sec. 6673(a)(1)(B).
In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000), we issued
an unequivocal warning to taxpayers concerning the imposition of
a penalty under section 6673(a) on those taxpayers who abuse the
protections afforded by sections 6320 and 6330 by instituting or
maintaining actions under those sections primarily for delay or
by taking frivolous or groundless positions in such actions. In
respondent’s January 11, 2005 letter, respondent advised peti-
tioner of the holding in Pierson v. Commissioner, supra, and
cautioned petitioner that if she continued to assert frivolous
arguments, respondent would request that the Court impose a
penalty on her under section 6673. On March 31, 2005, the Court
issued an Order in which, inter alia, the Court reminded peti-
tioner about section 6673(a)(1) and indicated that if petitioner
continued to advance statements, contentions, arguments, and/or
requests that the Court found to be frivolous and/or groundless,
the Court would be inclined to impose on petitioner a penalty not
in excess of $25,000 under section 6673(a)(1).
Nonetheless, in the instant case, petitioner alleged in
petitioner’s attachment to the petition, argued in petitioner’s
motion to dismiss, and advances in petitioner’s response and
petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s response, we believe
- 14 -
primarily for delay, frivolous and/or groundless statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests, thereby causing the Court
to waste its limited resources. We shall impose a penalty on
petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) in the amount of
$7,000.
We have considered all of petitioner’s statements, conten-
tions, arguments, and requests that are not discussed herein,
and, to the extent we have not found them to be frivolous and/or
groundless, we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.
On the record before us, we shall grant respondent’s mo-
tions.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order granting respondent’s
motions and decision for respondent
will be entered.