T.C. Memo. 2012-55
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
PATRICIA G. SEAVER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 3262-11L. Filed February 28, 2012.
Patricia G. Seaver, pro se.
Diane L. Worland, for respondent.
-2-
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RUWE, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for
summary judgment (motion) pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that no
genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the determination to sustain the
proposed collection action of issuance of a notice of levy should be upheld. In her
petition and in her opposition to respondent’s motion, petitioner advances only
arguments that are frivolous, groundless, or otherwise without merit.
Background
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Indiana.
Petitioner did not file income tax returns for 2004 and 2006. On October 13,
2009, respondent issued petitioner statutory notices of deficiency which determined
deficiencies in her income tax of $1,934 and $1,659 for the taxable years 2004 and
2006, respectively. In addition, respondent determined additions to tax pursuant to
section 6651(a)(1) of $263.93 and $373.28 for the taxable years 2004 and 2006,
respectively, and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) of $293.25 and
$232.26 for the taxable years 2004 and 2006, respectively. Petitioner did not file a
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
as amended.
-3-
petition with this Court regarding the notices of deficiency for 2004 and 2006. As a
result, those deficiencies and additions to tax were assessed on March 29, 2010.
On July 19, 2010, respondent issued petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice of
Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, advising her that respondent
intended to levy to collect her unpaid income tax liabilities for taxable years 2004
and 2006 and that she could receive a hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office.
On August 11, 2010, petitioner timely mailed to respondent a Form 12153,
Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, along with numerous
attachments.
On October 6, 2010, respondent’s Appeals Office sent petitioner a letter that
acknowledged receipt of her Form 12153. The letter also advised petitioner that:
(1) she was not in compliance with her income tax filing requirements, (2) she raised
many arguments in her hearing request which are frivolous, (3) she was not entitled
to a face-to-face collection due process hearing unless she withdrew her frivolous
arguments within 30 days of respondent’s letter and that IRS Notice 2008-14
regarding “specified frivolous position” is available at
www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/. The letter also scheduled a telephone collection
-4-
due process (CDP) hearing conference for November 16, 2010, and requested that
petitioner prepare and forward to the settlement officer a completed Form 433-A,
Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals,
and signed income tax returns for 2007, 2008, and 2009. The letter also advised
petitioner that the Tax Court is empowered to impose monetary sanctions of up to
$25,000 on a taxpayer who institutes or maintains an action before it primarily for
delay or takes a position that is frivolous or groundless.
On October 22, 2010, respondent’s settlement officer received a response
from petitioner. Petitioner disagreed with respondent’s interpretation of her
CDP hearing request, requested a face-to-face hearing, and made demand for the
return of approximately $2,878.90 which was allegedly collected from her by levy
between October 21 and December 30, 2006.
Petitioner did not call respondent’s settlement officer on November 16, 2010,
for the telephone CDP hearing. Nor did petitioner call at any other date to conduct
a telephone CDP hearing.
On November 23, 2010, the settlement officer sent a letter to petitioner
advising her that she did not call at the scheduled time and did not furnish the
requested information. The settlement officer’s letter also advised petitioner that
levy payments were received from her during 2006 through 2008 and applied to tax
-5-
liabilities for tax years other than 2004 and 2006, which were the subject of the
current CDP action. The letter further advised petitioner that she could not contest
her underlying income tax liabilities for 2004 and 2006 because respondent had sent
statutory notices of deficiency to her last known address, giving her a prior
opportunity to petition the Tax Court. The letter also reminded petitioner that
sanctions of up to $25,000 could be imposed against her for instituting or
maintaining an action before it for delay or for taking a position that is frivolous or
groundless.
Petitioner did not submit to respondent’s settlement officer either a Form
433-A or any proposed collection alternatives. Petitioner also failed to send a letter
or any other document to the settlement officer withdrawing her frivolous positions.
Respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 dated January 10, 2011,
sustaining the proposed levy to aid in the collection of her income tax liabilities for
taxable years 2004 and 2006.
Petitioner filed a petition with this Court on February 8, 2011.
-6-
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and to avoid unnecessary
and expensive trials. Shiosaki v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). A
motion for summary judgment is granted where the pleadings and other materials
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(b); FPL Grp., Inc., & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74-75 (2001); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98
T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff’d, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).
Petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion fails to indicate that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Consequently, we conclude that there is no issue as to any
material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.
Petitioner contends that “If a person request a hearing in writing under
subsection (a)(3)(B) and states the grounds for the requested hearing such hearing
shall be held by the Internal Revenue Office of Appeals” and that “Shall is a work
[sic] of mandatory intent.” However, we have repeatedly held that there is no abuse
of discretion in the IRS’ refusal of a face-to-face hearing where a taxpayer has failed
to present nonfrivolous arguments, file past-due returns, and submit financial
statements as prerequisites to a collection alternative. See Zastrow v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-215; Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
-7-
2009-169; Summers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-219. Respondent’s
Appeals Office informed petitioner that she was not entitled to a face-to-face CDP
hearing unless she withdrew her frivolous arguments, which she failed to do.
The remaining arguments made by petitioner in her petition and in her
response to respondent’s motion are entirely frivolous and unfounded. A position
“is frivolous if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned,
colorable argument for change in the law.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68,
71 (7th Cir. 1986). This Court has ruled that arguments such as those petitioner
asserts here are frivolous and wholly without merit. See Williams v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-277.
For example, petitioner contends that the Internal Revenue Service is “Falsely
applying 6020(b) Substitute for return program” in that “This return filed by the IRS
was filed under the pretense of 26 USC 6020(b)” and that “There can be NO
assessment for there can be NO SFR filed without taxpayers consent.” Petitioner
continues by stating that “Petitioner has up to this point clearly and precisely shown
that the IRS did file a SFR against petitioner file, entity. It is a return filed by the
IRS NOT the petitioner” and that the IRS has “no such authority to file a SFR
against anyone.”
-8-
Petitioner also challenges “the validity of all mailed documents due to lack of
official signature” and makes frivolous constitutional arguments including
allegations that IRS employees are conspiring to violate the Thirteenth Amendment,
which abolished slavery.
As we have said of similar arguments on previous occasions, petitioner’s
arguments are frivolous and devoid of any basis in the law. We need not refute
them with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might
suggest that they have some colorable merit. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d
1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011); Guthrie
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-81. Petitioner has raised no genuine issues in
her pleadings regarding respondent’s determination to sustain the proposed
collection action of her 2004 and 2006 income tax liabilities or the related additions
to tax. Consequently, we sustain respondent’s determination.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be issued
granting respondent’s motion and decision
will be entered for respondent.