JOHN JOSEPH WINGERT, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ═, UNITED STATES TAX COURT - MEMORANDUM DECISION, T.C. Memo. 2003-172 ═, Docket No. 9433-01L., Filed June 11, 2003. ═, John Joseph Wingert, pro se., Ann M. Welhaf and Jeffrey E. Gold , for respondent. ═, MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION, COLVIN, Judge : Respondent sent petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Sections 6320 and/or 6330 (the lien or levy determination) on July 13, 2001, in which respondent determined to proceed with collection from petitioner of his tax liabilities for 1994, 1995, and 1996 (1994-96). The issue for decision is whether respondent's determination was an abuse of discretion. We hold that it was not. ══, Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the applicable years. ═, FINDINGS OF FACT, Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found., A. Petitioner , Petitioner resided in Dundalk, Maryland, when he filed the petition. ═, Petitioner timely filed his income tax returns for 1994-96. He reported that he owed $823 for 1994, $2,227 for 1995, and $796 for 1996, but he did not pay those amounts when he filed his returns. ═, B. The Bankruptcy Proceeding ═, On June 6, 1997, petitioner filed a petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (bankruptcy court) under Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court converted his Chapter 13 proceeding to a Chapter 7 proceeding on August 15, 1997. He received a discharge under Chapter 7 on December 22, 1997

JOHN JOSEPH WINGERT, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ═

UNITED STATES TAX COURT - MEMORANDUM DECISION

T.C. Memo. 2003-172 ═

Docket No. 9433-01L.

Filed June 11, 2003. ═

John Joseph Wingert, pro se.

Ann M. Welhaf and Jeffrey E. Gold , for respondent. ═

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

COLVIN, Judge : Respondent sent petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Sections 6320 and/or 6330 (the lien or levy determination) on July 13, 2001, in which respondent determined to proceed with collection from petitioner of his tax liabilities for 1994, 1995, and 1996 (1994-96). The issue for decision is whether respondent's determination was an abuse of discretion. We hold that it was not. ══

Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the applicable years. ═

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

A. Petitioner

Petitioner resided in Dundalk, Maryland, when he filed the petition. ═

Petitioner timely filed his income tax returns for 1994-96. He reported that he owed $823 for 1994, $2,227 for 1995, and $796 for 1996, but he did not pay those amounts when he filed his returns. ═

B. The Bankruptcy Proceeding ═

On June 6, 1997, petitioner filed a petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (bankruptcy court) under Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court converted his Chapter 13 proceeding to a Chapter 7 proceeding on August 15, 1997. He received a discharge under Chapter 7 on December 22, 1997.

═

C. The Lien and Levy Proceeding ═

Respondent sought to collect the tax that petitioner reported on his income tax returns that he owed for 1994-96, but did not pay when he filed those returns. On November 18, 2000, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing relating to his tax years 1994-96. Petitioner timely requested a hearing.

On June 27, 2001, Keith B. Coleman (Coleman), respondent's Appeals officer, held a hearing relating to petitioner's tax years 1994-96. ═

On July 13, 2001, respondent sent to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 in which respondent determined to proceed with collection from petitioner of his tax liabilities for 1994-96. ═

OPINION

A. Whether $5,243.13 of Petitioner's Bankruptcy Estate Was Used To Pay His Tax Liabilities for 1994-96

Petitioner contends that respondent's determination to proceed with collection was an abuse of discretion because respondent improperly failed to recognize that $5,243.13 of his bankruptcy estate was used to pay his 1994-96 taxes. We disagree. ═

Petitioner introduced no credible evidence showing that $5,243.13 of his bankruptcy estate was used to pay his 1994-96 taxes. He testified that $5,243.13 of the proceeds from the forced sale in bankruptcy of his house was used to pay his 1994-96 taxes. However, he conceded that respondent did not receive the $5,243.13. No documentary evidence suggests that any of the bankruptcy estate was used to pay petitioner's 1994-96 taxes. Petitioner failed to show that $5,243.13 of his bankruptcy estate was used to pay his 1994-96 taxes. ═

B. Whether Respondent's Determination To Proceed With Collection Was an Abuse of Discretion

Petitioner contends that respondent's determination to proceed with collection was an abuse of discretion because he spent about $18,000 in prosecuting various claims against the Government. We disagree. Petitioner is entitled to no credit against his unpaid tax based on those claimed costs. ═

We conclude that respondent's determination to proceed with collection of his 1994-96 tax liabilities was not an abuse of discretion. ═

Decision will be entered for respondent. ═

Комментарии

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

Имя *

Комментарий *    

Добавить комментарий