Jon Robert Ludlam, et al. v. Commissioner of IRS

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-12694
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

Agency No. 024739-16 L

JON ROBERT LUDLAM,
MARIA LOUISA LUDLAM,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Respondent-Appellee.
________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the
U.S. Tax Court
________________________
(June 25, 2020)
Before WILSON, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12694 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 1 of 4

2
The United States Tax Court granted summary judgment against Jon and
Maria Ludlam. Thereby, it affirmed the Office of Appeals’ decision to sustain the
IRS’s tax collection actions against the Ludlams for Tax Year 2011 (“TY-2011”).
1

Proceeding pro se, the Ludlams appeal. Their appeal lacks merit. Therefore, we
affirm.
I.
We review the Tax Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, reviewing
the facts and applying the same standards as the Tax Court. Roberts v. Comm’r,
329 F.3d 1224, 1227 (11th Cir. 2003).
II.
Before the IRS files a notice of a federal tax lien against a taxpayer, it must
notify the taxpayer of his right to request a Collections Due Process (“CDP”)
hearing. See I. R. C. § 6320(a)(1). However, a taxpayer may not challenge the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability at a CDP hearing if he received
notice of the deficiency and did not challenge the existence or amount of the
liability before the CDP hearing. I.R. C. § 6330(c)(2)(B); Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-
1(e)(3), Q&A (A-E2).

1
In their petition to the Tax Court, the Ludlams also challenged the determination
sustaining collections for Tax Year 2010. Ultimately, because the liability for that year was abated,
the Tax Court dismissed that issue as moot. Because the Ludlams do not contest that
determination, we address only TY-2011. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.
2008) (noting that an issue is abandoned when a pro se litigant fails to address that issue in his
opening brief).
Case: 19-12694 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 2 of 4

3
Here, the IRS provided notice to the Ludlams that they had a tax deficiency
for TY-2011, but they failed to petition the Tax Court to challenge that deficiency
before their CDP hearing. Therefore, the Ludlams were barred from challenging
the amount or existence of the TY-2011 deficiency in their CDP hearing.
Accordingly, summary judgment was properly awarded against the Ludlams on all
of their claims that challenge the amount or existence of the TY-2011 liability, or
use the disputed amount of liability as a basis for not complying with the
procedures afforded to the them by the IRS.
III.
The Ludlams’s other claims on appeal relate to the adequacy of the CDP
hearing they received. We reject each of their claims.
First, the Ludlams claim that they never participated in a CDP hearing. That
claim is false. The Tax Court properly found that the Ludlams participated in a
CDP hearing by telephone. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A (A-D6)
(“CDP hearings are . . . informal in nature and do not require . . . a face-to-face
meeting.”).
Second, the Ludlams claim that they were entitled to a face-to-face CDP
hearing in front of the Office of Appeals. But they were not. Their only argument
at the CDP hearing was based on the amount or existence of the TY-2011
liability—which, as discussed above, is frivolous because they were barred from
Case: 19-12694 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 3 of 4

4
challenging the TY-2011 liability at the CDP hearing. Therefore, they were not
entitled to a face-to-face CDP hearing. See Treas. Reg § 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A
(A-D8) (stating that a face-to-face hearing regarding underlying liability will not
be granted where the taxpayer seeks to raise irrelevant or frivolous issues).
Third, the Ludlams claim that they were given inadequate notice of the
telephonic hearing and that they should have been given more time to prepare for
the hearing. Even assuming that the Ludlams did not receive notice before their
originally scheduled CDP hearing, they were given an additional week to submit
supporting documentation and participate in a follow-up CDP hearing, but they
supplied none of the requested information in that time period. Moreover, they
were given a de facto extension of approximately one month from their original
hearing date, during which time they also did not supply any of the documents that
were requested, and they have never asserted what additional evidence they would
have presented at a follow-up CDP hearing if given more time to prepare.
Therefore, it appears that the Ludlams had ample time to prepare and present their
claims, even if they never received notice of the originally scheduled CDP hearing.
I V.
Accordingly, we affirm the Tax Court’s grant of summary judgment against
the Ludlams.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-12694 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 4 of 4