Craig v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
119 T.C. 252 (2002)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Michael and Lorraine Craig (plaintiffs) filed untimely joint 1990–1992 federal tax returns. In October 1995, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commissioner (defendant) issued deficiency notices for 1990 through 1992. The Craigs challenged the deficiency determinations in the United States Tax Court. In February 1997, the Craigs allowed the IRS to assess and collect on the deficiencies before the Tax Court decided their challenges. In May, the commissioner assessed the Craigs’ federal tax for 1990 through 1992. In January 1998, the commissioner assessed Michael’s 1995 tax liability. In February 2001, the commissioner sent the Craigs a final notice of intent to levy against them for 1990 through 1992. The notice advised the Craigs that they had a right to a collection due-process (CDP) hearing under code § 6030, and the IRS enclosed IRS Forms 12153 by which the Craigs could request a CDP hearing. By letter, Michael requested a CDP hearing, with which he enclosed unsigned Forms 12153 for the relevant years. The IRS responded that it might take enforcement action without further notice if the Craigs did not return signed forms by May 3. On May 6, the IRS received signed Forms 12153 from Michael for the relevant years. In September, an IRS appeals officer conducted a hearing, which the officer stated was not a CDP hearing but rather an IRS equivalent hearing. In October, the appeals officer issued a decision letter upholding the IRS’s collection efforts and stating that Michael could not seek judicial review because the decision was not rendered after a CDP hearing, to which Michael purportedly was not entitled. However, the commissioner subsequently conceded that Michael should have received a CDP hearing. The commissioner sought summary judgment and to impose a penalty against Michael. Per the commissioner, the Tax Court had jurisdiction under code § 6330(d)(1) to review the commissioner’s proposed collection action even though it was based on an equivalent-hearing decision letter rather than a CDP-hearing notice of determination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Laro, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.