Filed: Jan. 27, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: T.C. Memo. 2005-13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHN WESLEY WINTERS, JR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11606-03L. Filed January 27, 2005. John Wesley Winters, Jr., pro se. J. Craig Young, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This case was commenced in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. The notice of determination sustained a proposed levy with respect to petitio
Summary: T.C. Memo. 2005-13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHN WESLEY WINTERS, JR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11606-03L. Filed January 27, 2005. John Wesley Winters, Jr., pro se. J. Craig Young, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: This case was commenced in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. The notice of determination sustained a proposed levy with respect to petition..
More
T.C. Memo. 2005-13
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JOHN WESLEY WINTERS, JR., Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 11606-03L. Filed January 27, 2005.
John Wesley Winters, Jr., pro se.
J. Craig Young, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, Judge: This case was commenced in response to a
Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under
Section 6320 and/or 6330. The notice of determination sustained
a proposed levy with respect to petitioner’s unpaid taxes for
1993. The issue for decision is whether petitioner has shown
that his reported tax liability for 1993 was eliminated by losses
- 2 -
incurred in 1994, 1995, and 1996. Unless otherwise indicated,
all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated
facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.
Petitioner resided in Raleigh, North Carolina, at the time that
the petition was filed.
On May 10, 2002, respondent sent to petitioner a
Letter 1058 (Final Notice - Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice
of Your Right to a Hearing) under section 6330 with respect to
petitioner’s Federal income taxes for 1993. Attached to the
Letter 1058 was an account summary showing that petitioner’s
liability for 1993 consisted of an assessed balance of $6,499.97
plus statutory additions to tax (penalties and interest) of
$3,275.73, for a total of $9,775.70. Petitioner responded to the
Letter 1058 by submitting a timely Request for Collection Due
Process Hearing (Form 12153) dated May 29, 2002. A telephonic
hearing was held in which petitioner contended that he incurred
Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, losses in later periods
that he thought should offset the income from 1993 reported on
the return as filed.
On June 17, 2003, the Office of Appeals mailed to petitioner
a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under
- 3 -
Sec. 6320 and/or 6330 with respect to petitioner’s Federal income
taxes for 1993. The notice included the following statement:
Relevant Issues Presented by the Taxpayer
In your request for a hearing, you challenged the
correctness of the liability by stating that you
incurred losses in future periods that you thought
should offset the * * * [income] from 1993. When
questioned about this, you stated that you did not
amend the applicable returns to compute any loss
carrybacks, nor did you present a reasonable argument
as to why a carryback is applicable. The service
center received your return for tax year 1993 on
November 10, 1997. The statute of limitations for
amending this return has since expired, and we show no
record that you have made any challenges to this
liability prior to this hearing. The liability is
comprised of original tax due with return, penalties
and interest. No examination assessments or other
changes to the account have been made.
OPINION
At the time of trial, petitioner acknowledged that “there is
no question that the income for the period of ‘93 is an amount
that is correct.” Petitioner contended, however, that his income
in 1994, 1995, and 1996 was “substantially lower than that in
‘93.” Petitioner did not dispute respondent’s assertion that his
return for 1993 was filed in November 1997 and that no returns
were filed by him for the period from 1997 through 2002.
Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the manner in which
he allegedly incurred operating losses that could be carried back
to 1993. Petitioner did not present copies of his returns for
1994, 1995, or 1996 or any other explanation of the losses that
he was claiming before, during, or after trial. Petitioner has
- 4 -
offered no explanation of why any losses that were incurred in
1994, 1995, and 1996 would not have been taken into account when
he belatedly filed, in 1997, his return for 1993.
Petitioner has failed to show that the assessed liability
for 1993 is erroneous in any respect. Although he claims
inability to pay the liability, he has neither offered any
collection alternatives nor complied with requirements for an
offer in compromise. See sec. 301.7122-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
On the record in this case, the notice of determination that
was sent to petitioner must be sustained.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.