Jean Bridgmon v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2012-322 , Code
Sec(s) 6330.
JEAN BRIDGMON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent .
Case Information:
Code Sec(s):
6330
Docket: Docket
No. 24708-10L.
Date Issued:
11/20/2012
HEADNOTE
Official Tax Court Syllabus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MORRISON, Judge: The IRS notified petitioner, Ms. Jean
Bridgmon, that it intended to use its levy power to collect her income-tax
liabilities for the tax years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Bridgmon requested a
collection-review hearing with the IRS Appeals Office (Appeals Office). She
received an adverse determination [*2] from that office. She has appealed that
determination to this Court. We do not sustain the Appeals Office's
determination. We direct that Bridgmon's case be remanded to the Appeals
Office.
The second error Bridgmon alleges is that the Appeals Office
failed to consider her proposal to make installment payments of her tax
liabilities. The reasons the Appeals Office did not consider the proposal are
that Bridgmon allegedly failed to telephone the Appeals Office at the time and
date scheduled for her hearing with the Appeals Office and that she did not
submit financial information that the Appeals Office had requested. We find
that Bridgmon did [*3] call the Appeals Office at the scheduled date and time.
We further find that the Appeals Office did not telephone Bridgmon at the
scheduled date and time. The scheduled telephone conference was to be
Bridgmon's primary opportunity to discuss her installment agreement proposal
with the Appeals Office. Under these circumstances, we hold that the Appeals
Office erred in failing to make better efforts to contact Bridgmon (such as
telephoning her) even though Bridgmon did not submit the requested financial
information. Bridgmon should be afforded another opportunity for a hearing with
the Appeals Office.
Analysis
2.
Bridgmon also contends that the Appeals Office erred in
failing to consider her proposal to make installment payments of $500 per
month. The IRS responds that the Appeals Office could not consider the
installment-agreement proposal because Bridgmon had failed to submit a
collection-information statement to the Appeals Office. In addition, the IRS
contends that Bridgmon failed to call the Appeals Office on June 16, 2010, at
the scheduled time.
We believe that Bridgmon did call the Appeals Office at that
time. Bridgmon testified that she called the Appeals Office at this time and
several other times. Bridgmon was a credible witness. Although the records of
the Appeals [*17] Office do not reflect that it received a telephone call from
Bridgmon at the scheduled time, and although the Appeals Office wrote a letter
on the scheduled day stating that she had not called at the scheduled time, we
believe Bridgmon. We find as a matter of fact that Bridgmon called the Appeals
Office at the scheduled time and at numerous other times. The IRS asserts that
the Appeals Office may have called Bridgmon. As support for this proposition,
the IRS points to the following note made by the Appeals Office in its files on
May 5, 2010: “ACS history—made several telephone attempts—no response.” We
believe this is a reference to a record entitled “Referral Request for CDP
Hearing from ACS Support”. This record indicates that on May 20, 2010, “ACS
Support” referred Bridgmon's “case file” to the Appeals Office and made the
following notes on the record: on February 10, 2010, “LEFT MESSAGE FOR
TAXPAYER.”, on February 18, 2010, “NO RESPONSE FROM TAXPAYER, SECOND MESSAGE
LEFT.”, and on April 9, 2010, “NO RESPONSE FROM TAXPAYER.” These notes refer to
telephone calls made by IRS employees other than those working in the Appeals
Office. We find that the Appeals Office did not telephone Bridgmon.
The significance of the telephone call that was scheduled
for June 16, 2010, was described in the May 6, 2010 letter of the Appeals
Office to Bridgmon. The letter advised her: “This call will be your primary
opportunity to discuss with me [*18] [the Appeals Officer] the reasons you
disagree with the collection action and/or to discuss alternatives to the
collection action.” The telephone call was important. It would have been an
opportunity for Bridgmon to ask about the Appeals Office's requests for
financial statements, which may have been confusing to Bridgmon. Bridgmon may
not have known, for example, whether the Appeals Office wanted her to submit a
Form 433-A, a Form 433-B, a Form 433-F, or all three forms. The fact that
Bridgmon did not submit any of these forms leads the IRS to argue that it was
not an abuse of discretion for the Appeals Office to reject collection
alternatives. The courts have recognized that the Appeals Office needs
financial information in order to evaluate collection alternatives such as
installment agreements and offers-in-compromise. Thus, it has not been held it
not to be an abuse of discretion for the Appeals Office to decline to consider
collection alternatives when (1) the taxpayer had refused to contact the
Appeals Office for the hearing and had failed to submit the financial
information requested by the Appeals Office, see Yoel v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2012-222 [TC Memo 2012-222], at *3, *8; Picchiottino v. Commissioner T.C.
Memo. 2004-231 [TC Memo 2004-231], slip op. at 13, or (2) the , taxpayer had
participated in a hearing with the Appeals Office and had failed to submit the
financial information requested by the Appeals Office. See Long v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-7 [TC Memo 2010-7], slip op. at 4. Bridgmon,
however, falls into [*19] neither of these two categories. She attempted to
participate in the telephone hearing, but her attempt was unsuccessful.
We hold that the Appeals Office's failure to do more to
contact Bridgmon was an abuse of discretion. We will remand the case to the
Appeals Office to hold a hearing. At the hearing on remand, the Appeals Office
will not be required to consider any challenges by Bridgmon to the underlying
tax liabilities, such as additions to tax.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be issued.
www.irstaxattorney.com (212) 588-1113 ab@irstaxattorney.com
No comments:
Post a Comment