Aston v. Commissioner
| Decision Date | 02 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 6763-00L. |
| Citation | 85 T.C.M. 1260 |
| Parties | Eryck C. Aston v. Commissioner. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
Eryck C. Aston, pro se.
Joan E. Steele, for the respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
Pursuant to section 6330(d),1 petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection of his 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992 income tax liabilities.
None of the facts have been stipulated. At the time he filed the petition, petitioner resided in Billings, Montana.
Petitioner timely filed Federal income tax returns for 1987, 1988, and 1989. Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 1992.
On April 25, 1991, petitioner filed a Form 872-A, Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax for 1988.
On May 14, 1993, respondent sent notices of deficiency for 1987, 1988, and 1989 to petitioner's last known address.
On January 14, 1994, respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws regarding petitioner's assessed income tax liabilities for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 with the County Recorder of Utah County, Provo, Utah.
On December 19, 1997, respondent sent a notice of deficiency for 1992 to petitioner's last known address.
On March 6, 2000, respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien regarding petitioner's assessed income tax liability for 1992 with the Clerk and Recorder of Yellowstone County, Billings, Montana.
On March 15, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (collection notice) with respect to petitioner's 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992 taxable years. Respondent listed the total amount owed (including unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest) for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992 as of the date of the collection notice as $1,522,588.25.
On March 17, 2000, petitioner sent respondent a Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992 (hearing request).
Appeals Officer Keith Fessenden was assigned to petitioner's case. Appeals Officer Fessenden sent petitioner two letters scheduling a telephone hearing with petitioner. Petitioner sent Appeals Officer Fessenden a letter stating that he (petitioner) did not have a phone. In this letter, petitioner did not raise any collection alternatives; he raised frivolous and groundless arguments regarding his underlying tax liabilities.
On June 8, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992 concluding that respondent could proceed with the proposed collection action because "the proposed collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with * * * [petitioner's] legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary."
OPINIONAs a preliminary matter, we must decide whether certain documents respondent submitted during the trial of this case should be admitted into evidence. At trial, respondent sought to introduce a Form 4665, Report Transmittal, a Form 886-A, Explanation of Items, and workpapers prepared by Revenue Agent Wesley Bayles. Petitioner made a hearsay objection to the admission of these documents. We reserved ruling on their admissibility.
Respondent argues that the documents are admissible because they were offered merely to show what information was available and considered by Revenue Agent Bayles during the audit of petitioner's returns. Revenue Agent Bayles testified that (1) he prepared these documents in connection with the audit of petitioner's 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 returns, (2) he had petitioner's bank records when he prepared the report, and (3) the report reflects the explanation of adjustments made for 1987, 1988, and 1989.
A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, shown by the testimony of a qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); see Clough v. Commissioner [Dec. 54,912], 119 T.C. 183, 188-189 (2002). The documents in question are business records prepared by Revenue Agent Bayles. There is no indication that the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Accordingly, we admit these documents into evidence.
Respondent concedes that the amount he originally assessed for 1992 was in error. Respondent originally assessed additional taxes due of $303,306 instead of $30,306 (the amount of tax determined in the notice of deficiency for 1992). On July 15, 2002, respondent abated $273,000 in tax and $174,493.09 in interest associated with this typographical error.
Section 6320 provides that the Secretary shall furnish the person described in section 6321 with written notice (i.e., the hearing notice) of the filing of a notice of lien under section 6323. Section 6320 further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period. The hearing generally shall be conducted consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330(c), (d), and (e). Sec. 6320(c).
Section 6330(a) provides that the Secretary shall furnish taxpayers with written notice of their right to a hearing before any property is levied upon. Section 6330 further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period. Sec. 6330(a) and (b).
Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner's collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner's intended collection action, and alternative means of collection. Sego v. Commissioner [Dec. 53,938], 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner [Dec. 53,803], 114 T.C. 176, 180 (2000). If a taxpayer received a statutory notice of deficiency for the years in issue or otherwise had the opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability, the taxpayer is precluded from challenging the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610-611; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182-183.
Respondent concedes that (1) petitioner did not receive the statutory notices of deficiency for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992, (2) petitioner raised the issue of his underlying liability for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992 in his hearing request and in his correspondence hearing, and (3) petitioner's underlying liabilities for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992 are properly before the Court. On the basis of the aforementioned concessions, we shall review petitioner's underlying tax liabilities for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992. See Goza v. Commissioner, supra. Where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we review that issue de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181. We review the remainder of the Commissioner's determination for an abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra.
The Commissioner's determinations generally are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous.2 Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering [3 USTC ¶ 1164], 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Durando v. United States [95-2 USTC ¶ 50,615], 70 F.3d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1995).
In numerous motions, at trial, and on brief, petitioner advanced shopworn arguments characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts. Wilcox v. Commissioner [88-1 USTC ¶ 9387], 848 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. [Dec. 43,889(M)] T.C. Memo. 1987-225; Carter v. Commissioner [86-1 USTC ¶ 9279], 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986). We shall not painstakingly address petitioner's assertions "with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner [84-2 USTC ¶ 9721], 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
Petitioner also appears to argue that he is entitled to a loss deduction related to (1) property seized by the Government, and (2) theft of his property by his ex-wife, Lonnie Probst. Petitioner does not explain in what year he is entitled to these deductions.
In the case at bar, petitioner presented the same documentary evidence regarding the aforementioned losses as he presented in Aston v. Commissioner [Dec. 55,112(M)], T.C. Memo. 2003-104 (Aston I). In the case at bar, however, petitioner did not offer any testimony in support of these losses.
Even if we were to consider petitioner's testimony from Aston I, the evidence does not establish that any of the alleged losses (from the seizure of the firearms or the alleged theft of property) occurred in 1987, 1988, 1989, or 1992. On the basis of the foregoing, we sustain respondent's deficiency determinations for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1992, and his determinations regarding petitioner's liability for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6661 for 1988 and sections 6651(a) and 6654(a) for 1992.
Respondent determined additions to tax and penalties for fraud for 1987, 1988, and 1989. The Commissioner has the burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Sec. 7454(a); Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial