Wood v. Comm'r

2006 T.C. Memo. 203, 92 T.C.M. 294, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 209
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wood v. Comm'r. Read the opinion of the Court — 88 T.C.M. 198
United States Tax Court·Decided September 25, 2006·No. No. 16390-05L ·Unpublished

Opinion

JERRE MARVINE WOOD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Wood v. Comm'r
No. 16390-05L
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2006-203; 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 209; 92 T.C.M. (CCH) 294; RIA TM 56629;
September 25, 2006, Filed
*209 Jerre Marvine Wood, pro se.
Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld, for respondent.
Wells, Thomas B.

THOMAS B. WELLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WELLS, Judge: The instant case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121 and to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. The issue we must decide is whether respondent's Appeals Office abused its discretion in determining to proceed with collection of petitioner's tax liability for taxable year 2002. After considering respondent's motion and petitioner's response, as supplemented, we conclude that there remain no issues of material fact that require trial or hearing. For the reasons stated below, we shall grant respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. 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 in effect for the year in issue.

Background

At the time of filing the petition in the instant case, petitioner resided in Sarasota, Florida. Petitioner failed to file a Federal income tax return or pay tax for taxable year 2002. Respondent prepared*210 a substitute for return pursuant to section 6020(b) and, on June 8, 2004, sent petitioner a notice of deficiency showing a deficiency of $ 3,011. 1 Petitioner failed to petition this Court, and, accordingly, respondent assessed the deficiency plus additions to tax pursuant to sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) and interest.

On February 19, 2005, respondent sent petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. On March 11, 2005, petitioner sent respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, and attachments which contained nothing but frivolous tax protester arguments. On April 19, 2005, petitioner sent respondent a letter captioned "Supplemental Letter to Request for Collection Due Process Hearing", in which petitioner continued to assert frivolous arguments.

Respondent's Appeals officer reviewed petitioner's*211 correspondence and determined that all of petitioner's contentions were frivolous. On July 5, 2005, respondent's Appeals officer sent petitioner a letter in which respondent notified petitioner that respondent had received petitioner's request for a section 6330 hearing and scheduled a telephone conference for August 11, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. Respondent also offered petitioner the opportunity to reschedule the telephone conference and the opportunity to conduct the section 6330 hearing through correspondence. Respondent's letter also directed petitioner to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publication, "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments", available on the IRS's Web site. In letters dated July 19, 23, 25, 27, and 30, 2005, petitioner continued to assert only frivolous tax protester arguments.

On August 11, 2005, the date of the scheduled telephone conference, respondent's Appeals officer attempted to contact petitioner but was unsuccessful. Following the unsuccessful attempt to contact petitioner, respondent's Appeals officer conducted petitioner's section 6330 hearing based on the correspondence received from petitioner. Respondent's Appeals officer determined that the proposed*212 levy was appropriate and, on August 17, 2005, sent petitioner a notice of determination. Petitioner timely petitioned this Court pursuant to section 6330. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 on August 21, 2006, and petitioner filed a response and a supplemental response on August 29, and September 13, 2006, respectively.

Discussion

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wood v. Comm'r, 2006 T.C. Memo. 203, 92 T.C.M. 294, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 209 (tax 2006).

2006 T.C. Memo. 203 (Wood v. Comm'r) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Glenn Crain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
737 F.2d 1417 (Fifth Circuit, 1984)
Goza v. Commissioner
114 T.C. No. 12 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Sego v. Commissioner
114 T.C. No. 37 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Craig v. Comm'r
119 T.C. No. 15 (U.S. Tax Court, 2002)
Jacklin v. Commissioner
79 T.C. No. 21 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
Dahlstrom v. Commissioner
85 T.C. No. 47 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)
Casanova Co. v. Commissioner
87 T.C. No. 13 (U.S. Tax Court, 1986)
Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner
90 T.C. No. 41 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner
91 T.C. No. 25 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)