Opinion
13102-20L
06-13-2022
BENJAMIN H. SKELLINGTON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
CARY DOUGLAS PUGH JUDGE
This case was set for trial at the Court's Anchorage, Alaska, trial session on June 6, 2022, held remotely. On April 7, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by 5 exhibits (account transcripts for 2016 and 2017; Notice of Determination; a letter titled Appeals Received Your Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing; Case Activity Record; and IDRS TXMODA transcripts for 2016 and 2017) and a supporting Declaration by Settlement Officer Melee Bailey (SO Bailey). At a remote hearing on June 8, 2022, petitioner objected to the motion, arguing that he was not given an opportunity to dispute his underlying tax liability.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and to avoid costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Under Rule 121 the Court may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b); See Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 548, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). We construe factual materials and inferences drawn from them in the light most favorable to petitioner, the nonmoving party. See Sundstrand Corp., 98 T.C. at 520.
Neither section 6320(c) nor section 6330(d)(1) prescribes the standard of review that this Court should apply in reviewing an IRS administrative determination in a collection due process case. But the general parameters of such review are marked out by our precedents. Where the validity of a taxpayer's underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we review the IRS' determination de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-82 (2000). Where the taxpayer's underlying liability is not in dispute, we review the IRS' decision for abuse of discretion only. Goza, 114 T.C. at 182. Respondent contends that petitioner's underlying tax liabilities are not at issue because he failed to challenge those liabilities during the administrative hearing.
A taxpayer may challenge his underlying liability in an administrative hearing if he "did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute" it. § 6330(c)(2)(B). If these conditions are met, a taxpayer may challenge a liability that he reported on his own tax return (or that the IRS calculated on a substitute for return pursuant to section 6020(b)). See Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 9 (2004); Treas. Reg. § 301.6320-1(e)(1).
A taxpayer is precluded from disputing the underlying tax liability in a judicial review if he fails to properly raise the merits of the underlying tax liability during the administrative hearing. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107 (2007). An issue is not properly raised if the taxpayer fails to request consideration of the issue by Appeals, or fails to present to Appeals any evidence with respect to that issue after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Treas. Reg. § 301.6320-1(f)(2)Q&A-F3.
The limited record before us suggests that petitioner raised his underlying liability initially (the hearing request is not in the record), but we cannot tell what evidence he was asked to provide. Consequently we are unable to determine whether SO Bailey gave petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present evidence supporting the issues that he raised. We will therefore deny respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and remand this case to Appeals for a supplemental administrative hearing consistent with this Order and the June 8, 2022, hearing. See Lepore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-135, 105 T.C.M. (CCH) 1811, 1813.
After due consideration and for cause, it is hereby
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on April 7, 2022, is denied without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that this case is remanded to respondent's Office of Appeals for a supplemental administrative hearing. It is further
ORDERED that jurisdiction over this case is retained by this Division of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that on or before August 28, 2022, the parties shall file a status report regarding the status of this case.