                                  T.C. Memo. 2012-220



                            UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  LA MARINE SERVICE, L.L.C., Petitioner v.
              COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 28955-10L.                           Filed July 31, 2012.



      William A. Neilson, for petitioner.

      John K. Parchman, for respondent.



                              MEMORANDUM OPINION


      FOLEY, Judge: The issue for decision is whether respondent abused his

discretion in determining to proceed with the collection of petitioner’s tax liabilities.

The parties submitted this case fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122.1


      1
          Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue
                                                                            (continued...)
                                           -2-

                                       Background

       Petitioner filed its quarterly Federal employment tax returns relating to the

taxable periods ending June 30 and September 30, 2004; March 31, June 30,

September 30, and December 31, 2005; March 31, June 30, September 30, and

December 31, 2006; and March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2007, but failed to

pay the full amount of tax reported on these returns. Respondent assessed a late-

filing addition to tax, a tax deposit penalty, and a failure to timely pay addition to

tax relating to each of these returns. Petitioner filed, but failed to pay the full

amount of tax reported on, its Federal unemployment tax return relating to 2007.

       On March 18, 2010, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to

Levy and Your Right to a Hearing letter relating to the periods in issue. On April

16, 2010, petitioner timely requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing and

indicated that it wanted to propose a collection alternative. In a letter dated

September 30, 2010, respondent scheduled an October 21, 2010, CDP hearing and

requested that petitioner provide a collection information statement, financial

documentation, and proof that it was current with all Federal tax obligations. This



       1
       (...continued)
Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                            -3-

CDP hearing was subsequently rescheduled, at petitioner’s request, to November 2,

2010.

        On November 1, 2010, petitioner’s counsel informed respondent that

petitioner had applied for a loan to pay its tax liabilities and requested postponement

of its CDP hearing. In addition, petitioner proposed two collection alternatives: a

six-month stay of collection while it attempted to obtain a loan or, in the alternative,

an installment agreement. Petitioner asserted that it would submit a collection

information statement and the requested documentation with its request for an

installment agreement.

        On November 2, 2010, respondent held a CDP hearing with petitioner’s

counsel. Petitioner failed to provide respondent with any requested documentation,

and on November 23, 2010, respondent issued notices of determination sustaining

the proposed collection action. On December 27, 2010, petitioner, whose principal

place of business was Belle Chasse, Louisiana, filed its petition with the Court.

After filing its petition, petitioner satisfied its tax liability relating to its 2007 Federal

unemployment tax return.

                                         Discussion

        Section 6330(a) provides that the Commissioner must notify the taxpayer of

his right to a hearing prior to levying on the taxpayer’s property. If the taxpayer
                                         -4-

submits a timely request for an administrative hearing, the hearing must be

conducted by the IRS Office of Appeals before an impartial officer. Sec.

6330(b)(1). During a collection hearing the taxpayer may raise relevant issues such

as the appropriateness of the proposed collection action and possible collection

alternatives. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).

      The Appeals officer must verify that the requirements of applicable law and

administrative procedure have been met, consider issues properly raised by the

taxpayer, and consider whether the proposed collection action balances the need for

the efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer’s legitimate concern that any

collection be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(b), (c)(3). In reviewing

the Commissioner’s determination, the Court considers only matters that were

properly raised at the CDP hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the

Appeals Office. See Pough v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 344, 350 (2010); Giamelli

v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 115 (2007).

      Petitioner contends that respondent erroneously assessed petitioner’s 20052

and 2007 Federal unemployment tax return liabilities. During its CDP hearing



      2
       Petitioner references, what respondent refers to as, a “miscellaneous
penalty” relating to petitioner’s 2005 Federal unemployment tax return. The record
provides no description or additional information relating to this “penalty”.
                                           -5-

petitioner did not challenge its underlying tax liabilities relating to the periods in

issue. Therefore petitioner is precluded from contesting its underlying tax liabilities

before this Court. See Pough v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. at 350; Giamelli v.

Commissioner, 129 T.C. at 115. Accordingly, we review respondent’s

administrative determinations for abuse of discretion. See Goza v. Commissioner,

114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). Petitioner contends that respondent abused his discretion

in rejecting petitioner’s proposed collection alternatives. Petitioner, however, has

failed to establish “clear taxpayer abuse and unfairness”. See Christopher Cross,

Inc. v. United States, 461 F.3d 610, 612 (5th Cir. 2006). Prior to the CDP hearing

the Appeals officer requested documentation relating to petitioner’s financial

condition. Respondent provided petitioner with sufficient time to submit the

requested documentation, and petitioner’s failure to do so provided a reasonable

basis for respondent to reject petitioner’s proposed collection alternatives. See

McLaine v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. __, __ (slip op. at 24-25) (Mar. 13, 2012)

(holding that it is not an abuse of discretion for the Commissioner to reject a

collection alternative because of a taxpayer’s failure to provide requested

documentation); Pough v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. at 351 (holding that the

Commissioner may set reasonable deadlines for a taxpayer to provide requested

documentation). Accordingly, respondent did not abuse his discretion. See
                                       -6-

McLaine v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. at __ (slip op. at 24-25); Pough v.

Commissioner, 135 T.C. at 351.

      Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.

      To reflect the foregoing,


                                                   Decision will be entered

                                             for respondent.
