                         T.C. Memo. 2012-55



                   UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            PATRICIA G. SEAVER, Petitioner v.
     COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



Docket No. 3262-11L.                    Filed February 28, 2012.



Patricia G. Seaver, pro se.

Diane L. Worland, for respondent.
                                         -2-

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION


      RUWE, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for

summary judgment (motion) pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that no

genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the determination to sustain the

proposed collection action of issuance of a notice of levy should be upheld. In her

petition and in her opposition to respondent’s motion, petitioner advances only

arguments that are frivolous, groundless, or otherwise without merit.

                                     Background

      At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Indiana.

      Petitioner did not file income tax returns for 2004 and 2006. On October 13,

2009, respondent issued petitioner statutory notices of deficiency which determined

deficiencies in her income tax of $1,934 and $1,659 for the taxable years 2004 and

2006, respectively. In addition, respondent determined additions to tax pursuant to

section 6651(a)(1) of $263.93 and $373.28 for the taxable years 2004 and 2006,

respectively, and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) of $293.25 and

$232.26 for the taxable years 2004 and 2006, respectively. Petitioner did not file a


      1
       Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
as amended.
                                         -3-

petition with this Court regarding the notices of deficiency for 2004 and 2006. As a

result, those deficiencies and additions to tax were assessed on March 29, 2010.

      On July 19, 2010, respondent issued petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice of

Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, advising her that respondent

intended to levy to collect her unpaid income tax liabilities for taxable years 2004

and 2006 and that she could receive a hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office.

      On August 11, 2010, petitioner timely mailed to respondent a Form 12153,

Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, along with numerous

attachments.

      On October 6, 2010, respondent’s Appeals Office sent petitioner a letter that

acknowledged receipt of her Form 12153. The letter also advised petitioner that:

(1) she was not in compliance with her income tax filing requirements, (2) she raised

many arguments in her hearing request which are frivolous, (3) she was not entitled

to a face-to-face collection due process hearing unless she withdrew her frivolous

arguments within 30 days of respondent’s letter and that IRS Notice 2008-14

regarding “specified frivolous position” is available at

www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/. The letter also scheduled a telephone collection
                                          -4-

due process (CDP) hearing conference for November 16, 2010, and requested that

petitioner prepare and forward to the settlement officer a completed Form 433-A,

Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals,

and signed income tax returns for 2007, 2008, and 2009. The letter also advised

petitioner that the Tax Court is empowered to impose monetary sanctions of up to

$25,000 on a taxpayer who institutes or maintains an action before it primarily for

delay or takes a position that is frivolous or groundless.

      On October 22, 2010, respondent’s settlement officer received a response

from petitioner. Petitioner disagreed with respondent’s interpretation of her

CDP hearing request, requested a face-to-face hearing, and made demand for the

return of approximately $2,878.90 which was allegedly collected from her by levy

between October 21 and December 30, 2006.

      Petitioner did not call respondent’s settlement officer on November 16, 2010,

for the telephone CDP hearing. Nor did petitioner call at any other date to conduct

a telephone CDP hearing.

      On November 23, 2010, the settlement officer sent a letter to petitioner

advising her that she did not call at the scheduled time and did not furnish the

requested information. The settlement officer’s letter also advised petitioner that

levy payments were received from her during 2006 through 2008 and applied to tax
                                          -5-

liabilities for tax years other than 2004 and 2006, which were the subject of the

current CDP action. The letter further advised petitioner that she could not contest

her underlying income tax liabilities for 2004 and 2006 because respondent had sent

statutory notices of deficiency to her last known address, giving her a prior

opportunity to petition the Tax Court. The letter also reminded petitioner that

sanctions of up to $25,000 could be imposed against her for instituting or

maintaining an action before it for delay or for taking a position that is frivolous or

groundless.

      Petitioner did not submit to respondent’s settlement officer either a Form

433-A or any proposed collection alternatives. Petitioner also failed to send a letter

or any other document to the settlement officer withdrawing her frivolous positions.

      Respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning

Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 dated January 10, 2011,

sustaining the proposed levy to aid in the collection of her income tax liabilities for

taxable years 2004 and 2006.

      Petitioner filed a petition with this Court on February 8, 2011.
                                         -6-

                                     Discussion

      Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and to avoid unnecessary

and expensive trials. Shiosaki v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). A

motion for summary judgment is granted where the pleadings and other materials

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may

be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b); FPL Grp., Inc., & Subs. v.

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74-75 (2001); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98

T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff’d, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).

      Petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion fails to indicate that there is a

genuine issue for trial. Consequently, we conclude that there is no issue as to any

material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.

      Petitioner contends that “If a person request a hearing in writing under

subsection (a)(3)(B) and states the grounds for the requested hearing such hearing

shall be held by the Internal Revenue Office of Appeals” and that “Shall is a work

[sic] of mandatory intent.” However, we have repeatedly held that there is no abuse

of discretion in the IRS’ refusal of a face-to-face hearing where a taxpayer has failed

to present nonfrivolous arguments, file past-due returns, and submit financial

statements as prerequisites to a collection alternative. See Zastrow v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-215; Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
                                           -7-

2009-169; Summers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-219. Respondent’s

Appeals Office informed petitioner that she was not entitled to a face-to-face CDP

hearing unless she withdrew her frivolous arguments, which she failed to do.

       The remaining arguments made by petitioner in her petition and in her

response to respondent’s motion are entirely frivolous and unfounded. A position

“is frivolous if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned,

colorable argument for change in the law.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68,

71 (7th Cir. 1986). This Court has ruled that arguments such as those petitioner

asserts here are frivolous and wholly without merit. See Williams v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1999-277.

       For example, petitioner contends that the Internal Revenue Service is “Falsely

applying 6020(b) Substitute for return program” in that “This return filed by the IRS

was filed under the pretense of 26 USC 6020(b)” and that “There can be NO

assessment for there can be NO SFR filed without taxpayers consent.” Petitioner

continues by stating that “Petitioner has up to this point clearly and precisely shown

that the IRS did file a SFR against petitioner file, entity. It is a return filed by the

IRS NOT the petitioner” and that the IRS has “no such authority to file a SFR

against anyone.”
                                         -8-

      Petitioner also challenges “the validity of all mailed documents due to lack of

official signature” and makes frivolous constitutional arguments including

allegations that IRS employees are conspiring to violate the Thirteenth Amendment,

which abolished slavery.

      As we have said of similar arguments on previous occasions, petitioner’s

arguments are frivolous and devoid of any basis in the law. We need not refute

them with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might

suggest that they have some colorable merit. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d

1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011); Guthrie

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-81. Petitioner has raised no genuine issues in

her pleadings regarding respondent’s determination to sustain the proposed

collection action of her 2004 and 2006 income tax liabilities or the related additions

to tax. Consequently, we sustain respondent’s determination.

      To reflect the foregoing,


                                               An appropriate order will be issued

                                        granting respondent’s motion and decision

                                        will be entered for respondent.
