Leonard Best v. Cir , 702 F. App'x 615 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    NOV 16 2017
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LEONARD L. BEST and EVELYN R.                    No.   16-71777
    BEST,
    Tax Ct. No. 26662-10 L
    Petitioners-Appellants,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    HOWARD E. MAY; et al.,                           No.   16-72186
    Petitioners-Appellants,            Tax Ct. No. 14545-12
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    Submitted November 14, 2017**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Circuit Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and SAVAGE,***
    District Judge.
    In this consolidated appeal, taxpayers Leonard L. Best, Evelyn R. Best,
    Howard E. May, the Estate of Judith A. May, and personal representative Marcia
    M. May (“Taxpayers”) appeal the Tax Court’s decision upholding proposed levies
    to collect unpaid federal income tax liabilities and upholding penalties pursuant to
    
    26 U.S.C. § 6673
    (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a)(1),
    and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we
    need not recount it here.
    I
    The Tax Court did not err in sustaining levies to collect Taxpayers’
    delinquent taxes. Taxpayers requested collection due process hearings when IRS
    notified them that the levies would be imposed. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 6330
    (b). During
    the hearings, the IRS Appeals Office appropriately verified “that the requirements
    of any applicable law or administrative procedure ha[d] been met.”
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Timothy J. Savage, United States District Judge for
    the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    2
    § 6330(c)(2)(A). Because they already had been afforded an opportunity to contest
    liability, Taxpayers were not entitled to do so following notification of the levies.
    § 6330(c)(2)(B). Further, Taxpayers agreed to their underlying liability in both
    cases. Taxpayers’ arguments against sustaining the levies are unsupported by law
    or fact.
    II
    The IRS Appeals Office did not err in producing only Taxpayers’ account
    transcripts during their collection due process hearings. Under 
    26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1
    , a taxpayer is entitled to “the pertinent parts of the assessment which
    set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the
    liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.”
    This regulation is “a permissible interpretation of [26 U.S.C.§] 6203, and we are
    therefore bound to give it deference.” Koff v. United States, 
    3 F.3d 1297
    , 1298
    (9th Cir. 1993). When Taxpayers received their account transcripts, they received
    “the pertinent parts of the assessment.” 
    26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1
    .
    Additionally, the taxpayers' subsequent receipt of the Forms 4340 prior to
    trial in the Tax Court fulfilled the Commissioner's section 6203 obligation to
    furnish taxpayers with copies of the IRS records of assessment. Form 4340 is
    sufficient to show that the assessments were proper. Koff, 
    3 F.3d at 1297
    .
    3
    Nor was the Appeals Office required to provide Taxpayers with a specific,
    signed delegation order for the Forms 4340. There is no requirement under IRS
    laws or regulations that the taxpayer receive a copy of the delegation of authority
    order from the Secretary to the person who signed the verification required under
    section 6330(c)(1).
    III
    The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing penalties under 
    26 U.S.C. § 6673
    (a)(1)(B). Taxpayers maintained “frivolous or groundless” positions
    when they argued that they were entitled to receive particular documents. 
    26 U.S.C. § 6673
    (a)(1)(B). Consistent with Koff, 
    3 F.3d 1297
    , IRS has reasonably
    classified these positions as frivolous. See Rev. Rul. 2007-21, 2007-
    1 C.B. 865
    ;
    IRS Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.C. 609. Because § 6673(a)(1)(B) is indifferent to
    a taxpayer’s state of mind, Taxpayers cannot escape penalty by advancing a
    defense of good faith reliance on counsel.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-71777

Citation Numbers: 702 F. App'x 615

Filed Date: 11/16/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023