 k       www.ustaiMcji/iifôjpx# 4   (FIRST)(MIDDLE)(LAST)2018 JUL 30AMII: 05   CHARLIE SHEEN_______ PetitioSàri*)— .........   _„  ,BY;  (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)    ôêpuïÿclerk    DEPUT VjCLEKK    v. X.Docket No.    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent PETITION 1.Please check the appropriate box(es) to show which IRS NOTICE(s) you dispute: □ Notice of Deficiency□ Determination of Worker Classification* M Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action□ Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for □ Notice of Final Determination Not to Abate Interest*Relief From Joint and Several Liability*     'Please see the Court’s Web site, www.ustaxcourt.gov, or information booklet for additional information if (1) you filed a claim for interest abatement or requested relief from joint and several liability, and the IRS has not made a determination, or (2) the petition involves a worker classification case. 2. Provide the date(s) the IRS issued the NOTICE(S) checked above and the city and State of the IRS office(s) issuing the NOTICE(S): JULY 09, 2018; EAST HARTFORD, CT 06108_____________________________________________ 3. Provide the year(s) or period(s) for which the NOTICE(S) was/were issued:  DECEMBER 31,2015_____________ 4. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: If you want your case conducted under small tax case procedures, check here:□(CHECK If you want your case conducted under regular tax case procedures, check here:ISONE BOX) NOTE: A decision in a “small tax case” cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals by the taxpayer or the IRS. If you do not check either box, the Court will file your case as a regular tax case. 5. Explain why you disagree with the IRS determination in this case (please list each point separately): A) THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO CONSIDER AND GRANT PETITIONER AN INSTALLMENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT. (I.A.) B) THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT CURRENT AT THE DATE SCHEDULED FOR HIS CDP CONFERENCE.C) THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO GRANT PETITIONER'S NEW COUNSEL A CONTINUANCE FOR THE CDP CONFERENCE. D) THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO RELEASE THE NFTL.    T.C. FORM 2 (REV. 3/16)  SERVED Aug 02 2018 6.  State the facts upon which you rely (please list each point separately): A) AT THE TIME OF THE CDP CONFERENCE, PETITIONER WAS CURRENT WITH HIS FEDERAL INCOME TAX COMPLIANCE. B) PETITIONER RETAINED COUNSEL ON JUNE 20, 2018, THE SAME DAY OF THE SCHEDULED CDP HEARING. COUSEL REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE IN ORDER TO PROPERLY PREPARE FOR THE CDP HEARING. THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED BY THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER. C) THE NFTL WOULD MAKE IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PETITIONER TO CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND TO OBTAIN FUNDS TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH INITIAL PAYMENT ON AN I.A. You may use additional pages to explain why you disagree with the IRS determination or to state additional facts. Please do not submit tax forms, receipts, or other types of evidence with this petition. ENCLOSURES: Please check the appropriate boxes to show that you have enclosed the following items with this petition: Ef A copy of any NOTICE(S) the IRS issued to you Bl Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number (Form 4) (See PRIVACY NOTICE below) Si The Request for Place of Trial (Form 5)Bi The filing fee PRIVACY NOTICE: Form 4 (Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number) will not be part of the Court’s public files. All other documents filed with the Court, including this Petition and any IRS Notice that you enclose with this Petition, will become part of the Court’s public files. To protect your privacy, you are strongly encouraged to omit or remove from this Petition, from any enclosed 1RS Notice, and from any other document (other than Form 4) your taxpayer identification number (e.g., your Social Security number) and certain other confidential information as specified in t Tax Court’s “Noti Regarding Privacy and Public Access to Case Files”, available at www.usta  (310) 789-5247 (Business Manager) ATURE OF PETITIONER(AREA CODE) TELEPHONE NO. 3130 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 600SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 MAILING ADDRESSCITY, STATE, ZIP CODE Address Used By CourtE-mail address (if any): ________________________________ State of legal residence (if different from the mailing address):  SIGNATURE OF ADDITIONAL PETITIONER (e.g., SPOUSE)  DATE(AREA CODE) TELEPHONE NO. MAILING ADDRESSCITY, STATE, ZIP CODE State of legal residence (if different from the mailing address): ____________  E-mail address (if any):  SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL, IF RETAINED BY PETITIONER(S)NAME OF COUNSELTAX COURT BAR NO. MAILING ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODEDATE    E-MAIL ADDRESS(AREA CODE) TELEPHONE NO. fDepartment of the Treasury  &JJwl Date JUL 0 9 2018  Internal Revenue Service  XISbrff Appeals OfficePerson to contact: IRS CT*RI Appeals office   Name: Michael J Matuszczak  333 East River Dr., Suite 200Employee ID Number: 0669400  East Hartford, CT 06108Phone: 860-290-4048  Fax: 855-270-5848  Hours: 9:00 - 5:30  Re: CHARLIE SHEENCollection Due Process Hearing  (Tax Court)     Taxpayer ID number:  Tax periods ended:  12/2015   Certified Mail NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code Dear Mr. Sheen: We reviewed the completed or proposed collection actions for the tax period(s) shown above. This letter is your Notice of Determination, as required by law. We attached a summary of our determination below. The attached summary shows, in detail, the matters we considered at your Appeals hearing and our conclusions. If you want to dispute this determination in court, you must file a petition with the United States Tax Court within a 30-day period beginning the day after the date of this letter. To obtain a petition form and the rules for filing a petition, write to: Clerk, United States Tax Court 400. Second Street NW Washington, DC 20217 You can also visit the Tax Court website at www.ustaxcourt.gov. The United States Tax Court also has a simplified procedure for an appeal of a collection action if the total unpaid tax (including interest and penalties) for all periods doesn’t exceed $50,000. You can obtain information about this simplified procedure by writing to the Tax Court or visiting their web site as shown above. The law limits the time for filing your petition to the 30-day period mentioned above. The courts cannot consider your case if you file late. If you file an appeal in an incorrect court (e.g., United States District Court), you won’t be able to refile in the United States Tax Court if the period for filing a petition expired. If you don’t petition the court within the period provided by law, we’ll return your case to the originating IRS office for action consistent with the determination summarized below and described on the attached pages. If you have questions, please contact the person at the telephone number shown above.        Letter 3193 (Rev. 12-2016)  Catalog Number 27215L  Summary of Determination It's our determination that all relevant policy, procedures, and law were followed regarding the filing of the lien notice. Collection alternatives aren’t appropriate because you are not in current compliance and you didn’t provide requested financial information. Therefore, the lien notice will remain on file until your account is satisfied. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely,  Matthew N McLaughlin Appeals Team Manager Enclosures: Letter 3193 cc: Robert S. Schriebman                                             Letter 3193 (Rev. 12-2016)  Catalog Number 27215L  Attachment to Letter 3193 CHARLIE SHEEN Type of Tax(es)Tax Period(s)Date of CDPType ofDate used to     determine   Noticehearing      timeliness       Form 1040 - Income Tax12/31/201503/13/2018IRC § 6320 - Lien04/17/2018   SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION On April 17, 2018, the IRS received from you Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. You submitted this hearing request in response to the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien for income tax period ended December 31, 2015. The amount you owe for this period is approximately $5,700,000. You are not in current compliance for period ended December 31, 2017 or for period ending December 31,2018. It's our determination that all relevant policy, procedures, and law were followed regarding the filing of the lien notice. Collection alternatives aren’t appropriate because you are not in current compliance and you didn’t provide requested financial information. Therefore, the lien notice will remain on file until your account is satisfied.  BRIEF BACKGROUND To secure the government’s position relative to other creditors, Revenue Officer Huerta filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien. You didn’t agree with this action and requested a Collection Due Process Hearing. Your hearing request was transferred to Appeals and assigned to Settlement Officer Matuszczak. Mr. Matuszczak sent you a letter dated May 17, 2018. On that letter he scheduled a telephone conference for June 20, 2018 at 11:30 a.m. Pacific Time. He also requested financial informationnecessary to consider collection alternatives, verification of current compliance, and a written statement detailing the collection alternative you wanted considered during this hearing. He gave you 14 days to provide this information. You also had 14 days to reschedule the conference if the date and time were not convenient. You didn’t provide any of the requested information. On June 15, 2018, Mr. Matuszczak received a message from your representative, Dianna Gorina. On that message, Ms. Gorina was asking for a 3-week delay in the conference. Mr. Matuszczak called Ms. Gorina and left a detailed message that the conference will not be rescheduled unless you provide the requested financial information, verification for current compliance, and a detailed request for a collection alternative by June 20, 2018. On June 20, 2018, Mr. Matuszczak received a message from your new representative. Robert S. Schriebman. He later received a valid Form 2848 giving Mr. Schriebman authorization to represent you in this matter. Mr. Matuszczak and Mr. Schriebman held a telephone conference later that day. During that conference Mr. Matuszczak confirmed that all relevant policy, procedures, and law were followed in the filing of the lien notice. He also pointed out that you hadn’t provided a financial statement and you aren’t in current compliance with estimated tax payments. Mr. Schriebman asked for additional time to submit a complete and accurate Form 433-A and get caught up with estimated tax payments. Mr. Matuszczak denied this request because you were given sufficient time to submit these items. Mr. Matuszczak and Mr. Schriebman discussed the issuance of a Notice of Determination and your judicial review rights on that determination.  LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW I, Michael J Matuszczak, verified the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure were met.  IRS records confirmed the proper issuance of the notice and demand, Notice of Intent to Levy and/or Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) filing, and notice of a right to a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. An assessment was properly made for each tax and period listed on the CDP notice. Notice and demand for payment was mailed to your last known address. There was a balance due when the Notice of Intent to Levy was issued or when the NFTL filing was requested.  I had no prior involvement with respect to the specific tax periods either in Appeals or Compliance. I reviewed the Collection file, IRS records and information you provided. My review confirmed that the IRS followed all legal and procedural requirements, and the actions taken or proposed were appropriate under the circumstances.   ISSUES YOU RAISED Collection Alternatives Requested On Form 12153, you checked the box “Installment Agreement”. You didn’t provide the requested financial information or verification that you are in current compliance with estimated tax payments, therefore, Mr. Matuszczak couldn’t formally consider, or grant, a payment agreement. Consequently, your request for an installment agreement is denied. You didn’t raise any other valid issue during this hearing. Challenges to the Liability You did not dispute your liability. You raised no other issues. BALANCING ANALYSIS Policy, procedures, and law were followed regarding the filing of the lien notice. You don’t qualify for a collection alternative because you are not in current compliance and haven’t submitted a collection information statement. Therefore, it’s our determination that the filed lien effectively balances the need for efficient collection of tax with your concerns that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. The filing of the lien notice is fully sustained.

Actor Charlie Sheen Challenges IRS Collection Determination

Actor Charlie Sheen Challenges IRS Collection Determination

U.S. Tax Court

Actor Charlie Sheen petitioned the Tax Court challenging an IRS collection determination, arguing that the settlement officer abused his discretion by refusing to consider an installment plan, by finding that Sheen wasn’t in compliance with his federal tax obligations, by refusing to continue the collection due process hearing, and by sustaining the notice of federal tax lien filing.    

Actor Charlie Sheen petitioned the Tax Court challenging an IRS collection determination, arguing that the settlement officer abused his discretion by refusing to consider an installment plan, by finding that Sheen wasn’t in compliance with his federal tax obligations, by refusing to continue the collection due process hearing, and by sustaining the notice of federal tax lien filing.