Conway v. Commissioner

MICHAEL J. CONWAY, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF

INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

RAYMOND T. NAKANO, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF

INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

Docket Nos. 23833–08L, 24600–08L. Filed December 19, 2011.

R assessed trust fund recovery penalties against Ps (P–C

and P–N). R did not issue Ps Forms 3552, Notice of Tax Due

on Federal Tax Return, within 60 days of the assessments. R

filed a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) on P–C’s property. R

then issued a CDP lien notice to P–C and a CDP levy notice

to P–N. R issued Ps Forms 3552 after issuing the CDP

notices. Ps argue that R’s determinations to proceed with

collection were an abuse of discretion because R had not com-

plied with the requirement of sec. 6303(a), I.R.C., that notice

and demand be given within 60 days of assessment. Held: The

CDP levy notice issued to P–N satisfies the requirements of

sec. 6303, I.R.C. Held, further, R’s determination to proceed

with levy against P–N was not an abuse of discretion. Held,

further, the filing of the NFTL against P–C was premature.

Held, further, R’s determination to sustain the NFTL filing

against P–C was an abuse of discretion.

Tim A. Tarter, for petitioners.

Chris J. Sheldon, for respondent.

OPINION

PARIS, Judge: Petitioner Michael J. Conway (Conway) and

petitioner Raymond T. Nakano (Nakano) petitioned the

Court to challenge the Internal Revenue Service Office of

Appeals’ (IRS Appeals) determinations to sustain: (1) The

filing of a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) against Conway

209

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00001 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

210 137 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (209)

and (2) a proposed levy against Nakano. See secs. 6321,

6330(c)(3), 6331(a). 1 Respondent filed the NFTL and proposed

the levy to collect trust fund recovery penalties (TFRPs)

assessed against petitioners for the taxable quarters ending

September 30, 2000, September 30, 2001, and December 31,

2001 (the tax periods at issue). See sec. 6672(a). The Court

has jurisdiction to review IRS Appeals determinations. Sec.

6330(d). On March 15, 2010, the parties filed a joint motion

to consolidate for trial, briefing, and opinion, which the Court

granted. These consolidated cases present one issue for deci-

sion: whether IRS Appeals abused its discretion in sustaining

the NFTL filing and proposed levy.

Background

The parties submitted these cases for decision fully stipu-

lated. See Rule 122(a). The stipulation of facts filed March

18, 2010, and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein

by this reference. When the petitions were filed, Conway

resided in Texas, and Nakano resided in Arizona.

I. Transportation Excise Taxes for National Airlines, Inc.

Conway founded and operated National Airlines, Inc.

(National), which was based in Las Vegas, Nevada. Conway

was National’s chief executive officer (CEO), its president, and

chairman of its board of directors during the tax periods at

issue. Nakano was National’s chief financial officer during

the tax periods at issue. National began flying passengers in

1999, but by December 2000 it was under bankruptcy protec-

tion. National ceased operations at the end of 2001. When

National stopped doing business, it had reported but unpaid

transportation excise taxes 2 for the tax periods at issue of

$1,832,501.01, $3,497,448.32, and $4,803,626.85, respectively.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,

as amended and in effect when the petition was filed; all Rule references are to the Tax Court

Rules of Practice and Procedure.

2 Sec. 9502 establishes the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which consists in part of excise

taxes on taxable transportation collected by airlines under sec. 4261. Airlines remit the excise

taxes to the U.S. Treasury for the benefit of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. See secs.

7501(a), 9502(b)(1)(B).

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00002 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

(209) CONWAY v. COMMISSIONER 211

II. Trust Fund Recovery Penalties

Respondent determined that petitioners were responsible

for National’s failure to pay the excise taxes. On March 14,

2003, respondent notified petitioners that he proposed to

assess TFRPs against them. On May 9, 2003, petitioners filed

protests of the proposed TFRP assessments with IRS Appeals.

Almost 3 years later, on March 23, 2006, IRS Appeals notified

petitioners that it had rejected their protests. Five days later,

on March 28, 2006, TFRPs were assessed against petitioners.

The notice of tax due, although dated March 28, 2006, was

not issued until June 6, 2006. 3

III. The Proposed Levy on Nakano’s Property

On May 22, 2006, respondent sent Nakano a Form 1058,

Final Notice—Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your

Right to a Hearing (levy notice). The levy notice reflected

respondent’s intent to levy on Nakano’s property and rights

to property to collect the TFRPs assessed against him. The

levy notice listed the type and amount of tax owed for each

of the tax periods at issue. The levy notice also stated: ‘‘To

prevent collection action, please send your full payment

3 Petitioners each filed a refund suit in Federal District Court after respondent denied their

refund claims submitted at the end of May 2006. Conway v. United States, No. 08–CV–201–

MHS–DDB (E.D. Tex., filed June 4, 2008); Nakano v. United States, No. 08–CV–1026–ROS (D.

Ariz., filed June 2, 2008). The District Courts each found the respective petitioner to be respon-

sible for National’s failure to pay the excise taxes, see sec. 6672, and entered summary judgment

sustaining the respective petitioner’s liability for the TFRPs and the assessments in connection

therewith, Conway v. United States, 105 AFTR 2d 2010–1310, 2010–1 USTC par. 50,297 (E.D.

Tex. 2010), affd. 647 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2011); Nakano v. United States, No. 08–CV–1026–ROS

(D. Ariz., Nov. 2, 2011). In Conway’s case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed

the District Court’s judgment on July 19, 2011. Conway v. United States, 647 F.3d 228 (5th Cir.

2011).

While the refund suits were pending, respondent filed a collection action against petitioners

in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. United States v. Nakano, No. 2:08–CV–

01340 (D. Nev., filed Oct. 6, 2008). Petitioners filed motions in their refund suits to enjoin the

Nevada proceedings based on sec. 6331(i)(1)–(4), which provides in relevant part that ‘‘No pro-

ceeding in court for the collection of any unpaid [divisible] tax * * * shall be begun by the Sec-

retary during the pendency of [any proceeding brought by such person in a proper Federal trial

court for the recovery of any portion of such divisible tax]’’. The District Courts granted peti-

tioners’ motions.

Upon motions to reconsider, however, the District Courts lifted the injunctions on the basis

of the distinction between divisible taxes, which are limited to taxes imposed under subtit. C,

and airline excise taxes, which are imposed by subtit. D. Nakano v. United States, supra (order

granting motion for reconsideration entered Nov. 12, 2009); Conway v. United States, supra

(order granting motion for reconsideration entered Nov. 30, 2009). Therefore, sec. 6331(i) does

not bar respondent’s collection action in these cases. Cf. Beard v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 147

(2011) (applying sec. 6331(i) to bar the Government’s collection action in District Court for the

same employment taxes that were subject to plaintiff’s refund suit in the U.S. Court of Federal

Claims).

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00003 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

212 137 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (209)

today.’’ The levy notice informed Nakano of his right to a

collection due process hearing (CDP hearing) with IRS Appeals

before respondent carried out the levy. Fifteen days later, on

June 6, 2006, respondent issued Nakano a Form 3552, Notice

of Tax Due on Federal Tax Return, for each of the tax

periods at issue (collectively, Nakano’s Forms 3552). 4

IV. The Federal Tax Lien Against Conway

On May 18, 2006, respondent sent Conway a Letter 3164B.

The letter stated that ‘‘We are attempting to collect unpaid

taxes from you’’, but it did not state the amounts, types, or

periods of the unpaid taxes.

On May 26, 2006, respondent filed an NFTL with the Clark

County Recorder’s Office in Nevada. The NFTL stated:

As provided by section 6321, 6322, and 6323 of the Internal Revenue Code,

we are giving a notice that taxes (including interest and penalties) have

been assessed against the following-named taxpayer. We have made a

demand for payment of this liability, but it remains unpaid. Therefore,

there is a lien in favor of the United States on all property and rights to

property belonging to this taxpayer for the amount of these taxes, and

additional penalties, interest, and costs that may accrue.

Conway was the named taxpayer on the NFTL. On June 1,

2006, respondent issued Conway a Letter 3172, Notice of

Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under

IRC 6320. Five days later, on June 6, 2006, respondent issued

Conway a Form 3552 for each tax period at issue (collec-

tively, Conway’s Forms 3552). 5

V. The Collection Due Process Hearing

Nakano and Conway timely requested CDP hearings on

June 16 and July 3, 2006, respectively, to contest the pro-

posed levy and NFTL filing. At the request of petitioners’

counsel, they received a joint CDP hearing. In their CDP

hearing requests, petitioners claimed the following: (1) The

TFRP assessments were invalid and (2) respondent failed to

4 Nakano’s Forms 3552 were dated Mar. 28, 2006, which was contemporaneous with the as-

sessment. The record does not reflect why they were not issued until June 6, 2006.

5 Like Nakano’s Forms 3552, Conway’s Forms 3552 were dated Mar. 28, 2006. Also, as is the

case with Nakano, the record does not reflect why Conway’s Forms 3552 were not issued until

June 6, 2006. See supra note 4. Although Forms 3552 were mailed to Conway on June 6, 2006,

they were returned as undeliverable. The forms were subsequently remailed to Conway’s coun-

sel. The parties have agreed that the date of mailing of the Forms 3552 to Conway was June

6, 2006.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00004 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

(209) CONWAY v. COMMISSIONER 213

issue notice and demand for payment within 60 days of the

assessments, thus precluding him from collecting the TFRP

assessments via lien and levy. 6

Petitioners’ CDP hearing was originally assigned to Settle-

ment Officer David Villaverde (SO Villaverde), who held a

face-to-face hearing with petitioners’ counsel. On the results

of the CDP hearing, SO Villaverde determined that ‘‘some

errors were found to have been made by the Service * * *

[but] there were no fatal errors made.’’ Specifically, SO

Villaverde agreed that respondent did not issue notice and

demand to petitioners within 60 days of the TFRP assess-

ments. However, he believed that this failure did not prevent

respondent from collecting the TFRP assessments via lien and

levy. Rather, SO Villaverde determined that ‘‘the Service

does have the collection tools available 10 days after the

untimely notice was sent on June 6, 2006, which would be

on or after June 16, 2006.’’ On the basis of this determina-

tion, SO Villaverde thought withdrawing the NFTL filing and

rescinding the levy notice were appropriate courses of action

given that the NFTL was filed and the levy notice was issued

before June 16, 2006.

Before SO Villaverde made final determinations in peti-

tioners’ CDP hearing, he was promoted to Appeals team man-

ager. Petitioners’ case was reassigned to Settlement Officer

Veronica Hernandez (SO Hernandez). After reviewing the

record and meeting with petitioners’ counsel, SO Hernandez

concluded that, while the untimely issuance of notice and

demand did not invalidate the TFRP assessments, respondent

should withdraw the NFTL filing and rescind the levy notice.

The Appeals team manager, however, disagreed with SO

Hernandez’s conclusions and ultimately overruled her. 7

Thus, IRS Appeals ultimately determined that: (1) The TFRP

assessments were valid and (2) failure to issue timely notice

and demand did not invalidate the NFTL filing or the pro-

posed levy. Petitioners timely petitioned the Court for review

of the determinations. See sec. 6330(d).

6 Petitioners also claimed in their CDP hearing requests that they were not responsible for

National’s failure to pay the excise taxes and thus were not liable for the TFRPs. During the

actual CDP hearing, however, petitioners conceded that they were not entitled to challenge the

underlying liabilities. Thus, petitioners’ underlying liabilities are not at issue here but were the

subject matter of U.S. District Court complaints. See supra note 3.

7 The record does not reflect whether the Appeals team manager who overruled SO Hernandez

was former SO Villaverde or another person.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00005 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

214 137 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (209)

Discussion

I. Applicable Law

A. Trust Fund Recovery Penalty

Section 6672(a) provides that any person required to with-

hold and pay over any tax who willfully fails to do so is liable

for a TFRP. The Commissioner is authorized to impose a TFRP

on any ‘‘officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or

employee of a partnership who as such officer, employee, or

member is under a duty to perform’’ the duties referred to in

section 6672. Sec. 6671(b). The Commissioner must give the

person on whom he intends to impose the TFRP notice of his

intent before assessing the TFRP. Sec. 6672(b)(1). If the per-

son timely protests the proposed assessment, the period for

assessing the TFRP does not expire before ‘‘the date 30 days

after the Secretary makes a final administrative determina-

tion with respect to such protest.’’ Sec. 6672(b)(3)(B). If the

person fails to protest or, after a timely protest, the Sec-

retary makes a final determination, the Commissioner may

assess the TFRP. A TFRP is assessed and collected in the same

manner as tax. Sec. 6671(a).

B. Notice and Demand for Payment

Once the Commissioner assesses a TFRP against a person,

he must give that person notice and demand for payment.

Sec. 6303(a). The Commissioner must leave the notice at the

person’s dwelling or usual place of business or mail it to the

person’s last known address. Id. The statute requires that

the Commissioner give the notice within 60 days of assess-

ment. Id. The regulations under that section, however, pro-

vide that ‘‘the failure to give notice within 60 days does not

invalidate the notice.’’ See sec. 301.6303–1(a), Proced. &

Admin. Regs.

C. NFTL Filing

If a person liable for a tax, including a TFRP, fails to pay

it after demand, the unpaid amount, including any interest

and additions to tax, becomes a lien in favor of the United

States upon that person’s property and rights to property.

Sec. 6321. The Commissioner may then file an NFTL to pro-

tect the validity and priority of the lien against certain third

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00006 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

(209) CONWAY v. COMMISSIONER 215

parties. Sec. 6323. Once the Commissioner files an NFTL, he

must notify the person of the filing and of the person’s right

to a CDP hearing to appeal the filing. Secs. 6320(a) and (b),

6330(a).

D. Notice of Intent To Levy

If a person liable to pay a tax, including a TFRP, does not

pay it within 10 days after notice and demand, it becomes

lawful for the Commissioner to levy on that person’s property

and rights to property to collect the unpaid amount,

including interest and additions to tax. Sec. 6331(a). At least

30 days before carrying out the levy, however, the Commis-

sioner must give notice to that person of the proposed levy

and of the person’s right to a CDP hearing to appeal the pro-

posed levy. Secs. 6330(a), 6331(d).

E. The CDP Hearing

If a person requests a CDP hearing to appeal an NFTL filing

or a proposed levy, he receives one before IRS Appeals. Sec.

6330(b). During the CDP hearing, IRS Appeals must verify

that all legal and procedural requirements have been met

with respect to the NFTL filing and the proposed levy. Sec.

6330(c)(1). Specifically, IRS Appeals must verify, among other

things, that the Commissioner properly issued the person

notice and demand for payment. Sec. 6303(a); Ron Lykins,

Inc. v. Commissioner, 133 T.C. 87, 96–97 (2009). Sustaining

an NFTL filing or proposed levy without proper verification

renders IRS Appeals’ determination an abuse of discretion.

Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 36 (2005).

After conducting the CDP hearing, IRS Appeals determines

whether to sustain the NFTL filing or proposed levy. Sec.

6330(c). The person may appeal an IRS Appeals determina-

tion to the Court. Sec. 6330(d). If the person appeals and his

underlying liability for the tax (or TFRP) was not at issue

during the CDP hearing, the Court reviews the IRS Appeals

determination for abuse of discretion. Lunsford v. Com-

missioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001) (citing Nicklaus v.

Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120 (2001)). IRS Appeals abuses

its discretion if it makes a determination that is ‘‘arbitrary,

capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.’’ Giamelli

v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111 (2007) (citing Woodral v.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00007 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

216 137 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (209)

Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999)). Petitioners conceded

during the CDP hearing that they could not contest their

underlying liability for the TFRPs. 8 Thus, the Court reviews

IRS Appeals’ determinations for abuse of discretion.

II. The Proposed Levy Against Nakano’s Property

Nakano contends that IRS Appeals failed to verify that the

requirements of applicable law had been met. Specifically, he

argues that respondent did not: (1) Properly assess the TFRPs

against him or (2) give him notice and demand within 60

days of any assessment. Nakano ultimately claims that this

failure rendered IRS Appeals’ determination to proceed with

the proposed levy an abuse of discretion.

A. Notice and Demand

Respondent contends that he gave Nakano valid notice and

demand when he issued Nakano the levy notice on May 22,

2006. The levy notice went beyond the typical notice of intent

to levy by including a demand for immediate payment of the

specific amounts of TFRP owed, listed by period at issue,

within 60 days of the assessments. In this limited cir-

cumstance, the Court agrees that this levy notice constitutes

notice and demand.

‘‘ ‘The form on which a notice of assessment and demand

for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the

taxpayer with all of the information required under * * *

[section 6303].’ ’’ Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536

(9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 525

(9th Cir. 1990)); see also Deputy v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2003–210. Section 6303 requires only that the notice

(1) state the amount of unpaid tax, (2) demand payment, and

(3) be issued within 60 days of assessment. The levy notice

here did provide Nakano with all of the information required

under the statute because it listed the type and amount of

unpaid tax for each tax period, explicitly demanded payment,

and was sent within 60 days of the assessments. The Court

therefore holds that respondent gave Nakano the notice and

demand required by section 6303.

8 See supra note 6.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00008 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

(209) CONWAY v. COMMISSIONER 217

B. Assessment

Nakano also argues that the TFRP assessments are invalid

because: (1) The assessments were untimely; (2) Nakano’s

Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and

Other Specified Matters, incorrectly characterized the assess-

ments as jeopardy assessments rather than quick assess-

ments; and (3) respondent did not timely issue notice and

demand. The Court disagrees. While Nakano’s notice of

determination states that ‘‘It was believed to have been

established that the assessment[s], although made late in

error, * * * [were] still * * * valid [assessments]’’, the

record contradicts this statement. Both the Forms 4340 and

Nakano’s Forms 3552 show that respondent assessed the

TFRPs on March 28, 2006. Aside from the statement in the

notice of determination, no evidence suggests that

respondent did not timely assess the TFRPs. Also, Nakano has

shown no prejudice, and, therefore, mislabeling the quick

assessments as jeopardy assessments does not invalidate

them. See McCall v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009–75. In

addition, the Court has already rejected Nakano’s argument

that he did not receive timely notice and demand for pay-

ment. Thus, the Court holds that the TFRP assessments

against Nakano are valid.

C. Conclusion

Respondent properly assessed the TFRPs against Nakano

and issued him valid notice and demand for payment. Thus,

IRS Appeals correctly verified that all legal and administra-

tive requirements had been met. Therefore, IRS Appeals did

not abuse its discretion when it sustained the proposed levy.

III. The NFTL Filed on Conway’s Property

Like Nakano, Conway contends that IRS Appeals failed to

verify that the requirements of applicable law had been met.

Specifically, he argues that respondent did not give him

notice and demand within 60 days of the assessment. 9

Respondent, however, contends that he issued Conway valid

9 To be sure, Conway also argues that respondent improperly assessed the TFRPs against him.

Because respondent did not give Conway notice and demand before the NFTL filing, thus invali-

dating the filing and rendering IRS Appeals’ determination an abuse of discretion, the Court

need not address this argument. See supra note 5.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00009 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

218 137 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (209)

notice and demand when he sent Conway the Letter 3164B,

the lien notice, and Conway’s Forms 3552. Alternatively,

respondent argues that he did not need to issue notice and

demand to Conway because Conway’s role as National’s CEO

put him on notice of the unpaid amounts and respondent’s

demand for payment. The Court disagrees with both of

respondent’s arguments.

First, the Letter 3164B did not constitute valid notice and

demand. The Letter 3164B merely reflected that unpaid

taxes were owed but did not state the amounts, types, or

periods of the unpaid taxes. Respondent contends that the

Letter 3164B did not have to state the amounts owed

because, by the time respondent issued the Letter 3164B,

Conway’s multiple communications with IRS Appeals (before

the assessments) regarding the amounts of the unpaid TFRPs

had provided him with constructive notice. Even if Conway

had previously seen the proposed assessments, section

6303(a) required respondent, after making an assessment of

tax, to either leave notice and demand of payment at

Conway’s ‘‘dwelling or usual place of business’’ or mail it to

his last known address. Cf. Resyn Corp. v. United States (In

re Resyn Corp.), 945 F.2d 1279 (3d Cir. 1991) (IRS’ filing of

a proof of claim in bankruptcy did not satisfy section 6303(a)

because it did not employ either of these notification

methods). Therefore, since the Letter 3164B gave notice of

nothing other than that unpaid taxes were owed, it did not

constitute a valid postassessment notice and demand.

Next, the lien notice did not constitute valid notice and

demand under section 6303 and section 6321. Respondent’s

argument assumes that the lien notice issued to Conway on

June 1, 2006, can serve as both notice and demand under

section 6303 and notice under section 6320. This assumption

is flawed. A tax lien imposed under section 6321 arises at the

time of assessment, see sec. 6322, and is enforceable when a

‘‘person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the

same after demand’’, sec. 6321 (emphasis added). Moreover,

section 6320(a)(1) requires the Commissioner to notify ‘‘the

person described in section 6321’’ of the NFTL filing.

(Emphasis added.) This person is the person liable to pay

who has refused to pay after demand. Thus, the Commis-

sioner must issue notice under section 6320(a)(1) only after

demand has been made and the person neglects or refuses to

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00010 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

(209) CONWAY v. COMMISSIONER 219

pay. Therefore, no notice can serve as both assessment notice

and demand under section 6303 and also postlien notice

under section 6320(a)(1).

Unlike the statutory requirements above that the

postassessment notice and demand precedes the postlien

notice, respondent did the reverse. On June 1, 2006,

respondent issued the lien notice to Conway. On June 6,

2006, respondent issued to Conway the Forms 3552, notice of

tax due. Thus, the NFTL filed on May 26, 2006, predated the

notice and demand for payment reflected on Forms 3552

issued to Conway on June 6, 2006. Similarly, the Forms

3552 issued to Conway on June 6, 2006, even though consti-

tuting valid notice and demand under the applicable regula-

tion, cannot support the instant NFTL filing because the filing

predated the issuance of the Forms 3552.

Alternatively, respondent argues that he did not need to

issue notice and demand to Conway because Conway’s role as

National’s CEO put him on notice of the unpaid amounts and

respondent’s demand for payment. Respondent relies on

Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States, 479 U.S. 442

(1987), to support his argument. Respondent’s reliance on

Jersey Shore is misplaced. The penalty imposed on the bank

in Jersey Shore was nonassessable and not subject to

administrative collection procedures. Id. at 447. Thus, the

Supreme Court’s reasoning in Jersey Shore does not support

the proposition that any notice Conway may have had elimi-

nated the need for respondent to issue notice and demand

before the lien on Conway’s property arose.

Because respondent failed to give notice and demand

before filing the NFTL, the NFTL filing was premature and

respondent should have withdrawn the NFTL pursuant to sec-

tion 6323(j)(1)(A). The Appeals team manager’s verification

that the requirements of applicable law had been met was

therefore incorrect, and respondent’s determination to sus-

tain the NFTL filing was an abuse of discretion.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00011 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA

220 137 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (209)

To reflect the foregoing,

Appropriate decisions will be entered.

f

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00012 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\CONWAY.137 SHEILA