Nothing Like Being Immunized Against Taxes

[The Observer]

I know this person doesn't fit the usual definition of a tax defier, but this approach was so inane, it seems to fit the "stupid" portion of our topic header.

MICHAEL COE BUCHANAN,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

Release Date: MARCH 14, 2014

Pursuant to Tax Court Rule 50(f), orders shall not be treated
as precedent, except as otherwise provided.

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217

ORDER AND DECISION

Petitioner filed the petition in this collection review case appealing a Notice Of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) dated May 30, 2013, issued to him by the Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office in Memphis, Tennessee. 1 The notice of determination sustained a proposed levy to collect petitioner's 2008 unpaid income tax liability. The case is before the Court on respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121 on January 27, 2014, together with the supporting Declaration Of Settlement Officer Minnie L. Banks (SO Banks). On February 19, 2014, the Court received and filed petitioner's letter dated February 11, 2014, which we deem to be his objection to respondent's motion.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner does not dispute the following facts drawn from the pleadings, respondent's motion, the declaration, petitioner's objection, and the various exhibits attached to those documents.

Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 2008. Respondent therefore prepared a substitute for return and sent a notice of deficiency to petitioner at his last known address, address is also petitioner's current address of record. The notice of deficiency was returned undelivered to respondent. 2 Not surprisingly, therefore, petitioner did not file a petition for redetermination of deficiency in this Court and, in due course, respondent assessed the deficiency and additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) (failure to file), 6651(a)(2) (failure to pay), and 6654(a) (underpayment of estimated tax), together with statutory interest.

On March 4, 2013, respondent mailed petitioner a Final Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A Hearing (levy notice) in respect of his unpaid tax liability for 2008. Petitioner timely submitted Form 12153, Request For A Collection Due Process Or Equivalent Hearing, indicating that he was requesting an installment agreement as a collection alternative. In addition, in a letter attached to the Form 12153 petitioner asserted that he had worked as a news reporter/anchor in Washington, D.C., for 40 years; that he had uncovered and developed a report regarding the planned scope of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; that he had been informed that publishing the story would endanger national security; that he had agreed to withhold the report; that in return for his forbearance an official in the Bush administration had granted him "tax immunity"; and that all of this could be confirmed by contacting Director Robert Mueller of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Petitioner's hearing request was assigned to SO Banks. SO Banks confirmed that she had no prior involvement with petitioner and verified that all legal and administrative procedures had been met. Petitioner's account showed that he had not filed income tax returns for 2010 and 2011. SO Banks sent petitioner a letter scheduling a telephone hearing for May 1, 2013, and enclosing a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement For Individuals. SO Banks informed petitioner that she could not consider a collection alternative unless petitioner completed and submitted the Form 433-A and Federal income tax returns for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Petitioner did not submit either a Form 433-A or the requested returns, nor did he call SO Banks for the hearing on May 1, 2013. SO Banks sent petitioner a follow-up letter, giving him additional time to submit the requested information and returns. Petitioner did not do so. Consequently, the Appeals Office issued the notice of determination, determining that (1) petitioner's challenge to the underlying liability could not be considered because petitioner did not respond, (2) an installment agreement could not be considered because petitioner was not in filing compliance and did not provide the requested information, and (3) the proposed levy to collect petitioner's 2008 unpaid tax liability balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's concern that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.

Petitioner timely filed a petition, appealing the notice of determination and alleging that he was granted "tax exempt" status in return for suppressing his story regarding the 9/11 terrorists' plans. Petitioner repeated this allegation in his letter dated February 11, 2014, objecting to respondent's motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in controversy "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits or declarations, if any, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law." Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. at 520. Facts are reviewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. The Court concludes that respondent's motion for summary judgment is well founded based on the averments therein and in the declaration and the related exhibits attached thereto.

In reviewing the Appeals officer's determination, the Court will consider only those issues that the taxpayer raised at the hearing. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 113 (2007). Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is at issue in a collection review proceeding, the Court will review the matter de novo. Id. at 111. The Court reviews the Appeals officer's other determinations regarding the collection action for an abuse of discretion. Id. An Appeals officer's determination will not constitute an abuse of discretion unless the determination is arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. Id.

In his request for a hearing and in the petition, petitioner challenges the underlying Federal income tax liability on the ground that he was granted "tax-exempt" status. Petitioner's argument fails for any number of reasons, including: (1) exclusions from gross income must be narrowly construed, Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 328 (1995) (quoting United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 248 (1992)); (2) tax-exempt status is provided in section 501 and only specified organizations, and not individuals, may be tax exempt under section 501, see generally secs. 501-521; (3) no person in the White House, or in the Government in general, may confer tax-exempt status independent of the standards specified in the Internal Revenue Code, see sec. 501, allowing the Secretary to prescribe regulations and guidance necessary to carry out the provisions of the section, see also sec. 1.501(a)-1 et seq., Income Tax Regs.; and (4) and there is no provision in the Code or otherwise that supports petitioner's theory. In short, petitioner has raised no justiciable challenge to the existence or amount of his outstanding liability. More fundamentally, petitioner is barred from challenging the existence or amount of his outstanding liability in the instant collection review action because he did not engage with SO Banks during the administrative hearing by failing to present any evidence to support his allegations. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 115 (2007); sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2) Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

The determination of the Appeals Office that petitioner is not entitled to an installment agreement was not arbitrary or capricious because (1) as a non-filer, petitioner is not in compliance and (2) he never submitted a specific installment proposal or the necessary financial information on which SO Banks could determine entitlement to a collection alternative. See, e.g, Londono v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-99, holding that the Commissioner may properly decline to consider a collection alternative if the taxpayer is not currently in compliance with Federal tax laws; Willis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-302, holding that there was no abuse of discretion by the Commissioner's settlement officer when the taxpayer failed to provide sufficient financial documentation to support a collection alternative. Moreover, petitioner did not raise the issue in the petition, so it is deemed conceded. Rule 34(b)(4) "Any issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded.").

The record reflects that the Appeals Office complied with all of the requirements set forth in the controlling statutes and nothing provided by petitioner suggests otherwise. In sum, the Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in this case.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to petitioner, the nonmoving party, as we must do in considering respondent's motion for summary judgment, we conclude that there is no dispute as to a material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law sustaining the notice of determination upon which this case is based.

Upon due consideration and for cause, it is

ORDERED that respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment, filed January 27, 2014, is granted. It is further

ORDERED AND DECIDED that respondent may proceed with the proposed collection action (levy) in respect of petitioner's outstanding income tax liability for the taxable (calendar) year 2008, as determined by respondent's Appeals Office in its Notice Of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated May 30, 2013, upon which notice this case is based.

Entered: March 14 2014

(Signed)

Robert N. Armen, Jr.
Special Trial Judge

FOOTNOTES:

/1/ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure

/2/ The record does not definitively disclose whether the notice of deficiency went unclaimed or whether delivery was refused by petitioner

[Famspear]

.....petitioner asserted that he had worked as a news reporter/anchor in Washington, D.C., for 40 years; that he had uncovered and developed a report regarding the planned scope of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; that he had been informed that publishing the story would endanger national security; that he had agreed to withhold the report; that in return for his forbearance an official in the Bush administration had granted him "tax immunity"; and that all of this could be confirmed by contacting Director Robert Mueller of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.....

As I recall from reading the daily super-secret double-naught spy status reports captured over the years -- in the Email function of my super-secret Illuminati de-coder ring -- officials in the government have been pretending to grant this kind of "tax immunity" for years -- all the while holding their fingers crossed!

Don't people ever notice that every time "tax immunity" is granted, the hands of the government official making the grant are not visible, 'cause he's conveniently holding them under the table, just out of view?!!?

Boy, these tax protester-tax denier folks are so naive...... what a bunch of suckers.....

[Famspear]

Yes, "tax immunity." Let's see..... that's authorized under Internal Revenue Code section 999999999999. Of course, that's a super-secret double-naught spy code section that's not published so that just any old patriot-sovereign-freedom lover can find out about it.

I wonder how this guy Buchanan managed to find out about "tax immunity."

I think we need to tighten up the security procedures around here....

[Dr. Caligari]

I know this person doesn't fit the usual definition of a tax defier, but this approach was so inane, it seems to fit the "stupid" portion of our topic header.

Inane? I would have said "delusional."

[grixit]

I wonder if perhaps he was the victim of a practical joke?

This reminds of a conversation i had with a conspiracy nut some years back. He was explaining how he had gotten some item of information through a personal meeting with a Secret Service agent who was risking his life to get the truth out. And when i asked if he'd considered that the whole thing might have been a fake, he said that didn't make sense because why would a Secret Service agent risk his life for a fake?

[LPC]

In addition, in a letter attached to the Form 12153 petitioner asserted that he had worked as a news reporter/anchor in Washington, D.C., for 40 years; that he had uncovered and developed a report regarding the planned scope of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; that he had been informed that publishing the story would endanger national security; that he had agreed to withhold the report; that in return for his forbearance an official in the Bush administration had granted him "tax immunity"; and that all of this could be confirmed by contacting Director Robert Mueller of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I wonder if anyone bothered to follow up with Robert Mueller.

I did a quick check, and there is (or was) a Washington-area reporter named Mike Buchanan who worked for station (WUSA) for 33 years and was then let go in 2004 (at the age of 62). He seems to have bounced around after that, but I don't see anything recent, and he would now be 72.

One article described him as "boisterous, unpredictable, and slightly rumpled," which I think is a good description of "potentially delusional," especially after the shock of being fired at the age of 62.

[LPC]

This reminds of a conversation i had with a conspiracy nut some years back. He was explaining how he had gotten some item of information through a personal meeting with a Secret Service agent who was risking his life to get the truth out. And when i asked if he'd considered that the whole thing might have been a fake, he said that didn't make sense because why would a Secret Service agent risk his life for a fake?

Congratulations, you've made my head hurt.