United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
FREDERICK M. NERLINGER and DELORES R. NERLINGER, jointly and separately, Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket #6). The Motion is fully briefed. The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments pertinent to the Motion are adequately presented in the parties' papers, and the decision process will not be aided by oral arguments. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion be resolved on the briefs submitted by the parties, without this Court entertaining oral arguments. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
On October 29, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") sent Plaintiffs a letter of determination of taxes owed for taxable years 2001 and 2002. The IRS had previously placed two liens on Plaintiffs' assets on April 3, 2009, one for taxable year 2001 and one for taxable year 2002, and sent Plaintiffs notice of the liens on April 14, 2009. On November 29, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a petition against the IRS in the United States Tax Court ("Tax Court") to appeal the IRS's collection determination. On March 8, 2012, the IRS filed in the Tax Court a motion for entry of a decision, wherein the IRS stated, in part:
2. At a hearing held on March 7, 2012, [the IRS] conceded [Plaintiffs] did not receive the notice of deficiency, that the liabilities for taxable years 2001 and 2002 would be abated, the liens released, and that no levy action would occur for these years.
3. [The IRS] prepared a Stipulation of Settled Issues... reflecting the above stated concessions, however, [Plaintiffs] refused to sign the Stipulation. [Plaintiffs] demand that alleged facts be admitted by [the IRS] in the Stipulation and concede that [the IRS] abused his discretion.
4. As a result of the concessions by [the IRS], there are no further issues for th[e Tax] Court.
On March 14, 2012, the Tax Court issued an "Order and Decision" that stated:
This case was called from the calendar for the Trial Session of the Court at Detroit, Michigan on March 5, 2012. [Plaintiffs] and counsel for [the IRS] appeared and were heard. This case was recalled on March 7, 2012. [Plaintiffs] and counsel for [the IRS] again appeared and were heard. On March 8, 2012, [the IRS] filed with the Court a motion for entry of decision. After due consideration, and for cause more fully appearing in the transcripts of the proceedings and [the IRS's] motion for entry of decision, it is
ORDERED that [the IRS's] motion for entry of decision is granted. It is further[:]
ORDERED and DECIDED that the determinations set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action, dated October 28, 2009, for the taxable years 2001 and 2002 are not sustained.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the Tax Court's March 14, 2012, Order and Decision. Plaintiffs argued that the IRS's concession was not real and would leave the IRS free to collect for taxable years 2001 and 2002. On April 27, 2012, the Tax Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to vacate, finding that Plaintiffs wanted "more than a full concession from [the IRS] and [Plaintiffs] failed to sign a Stipulation of Settled Issues that resolved all issues in the case." The Tax Court further stated:
[Plaintiffs] are abusing the purposes for which the collection review statutes, section 6320 and 6330, were adopted. [The IRS] fully conceded this case. [The IRS] acknowledged that [Plaintiffs] did not receive the statutory deficiency notice. [The IRS] also abated (or would soon abate) the liabilities for 2001 and 2002 and the liens released [sic]. In addition, no levy action would occur for these years. [Plaintiffs] want [the IRS] to admit [it] abused its] discretion. This we cannot do ...