T.C. Memo. 2003-153
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
SILVIA S. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 9686-00L. Filed May 27, 2003.
Silvia S. Rodriguez, pro se.
Nancy C. Carver, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COLVIN, Judge: On August 11, 2000, respondent sent
petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection
Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (the lien or levy
determination), in which respondent determined to proceed with
collection of deficiencies in petitioner’s income tax, additions
- 2 -
to tax, and interest for 1988-89. Petitioner did not file tax
returns for tax years 1988-2000.
The issues for decision are:
1. Whether respondent was time barred from collecting taxes
due for 1988-89. We hold that respondent is not.
2. Whether respondent’s refusal to consider petitioner’s
offer in compromise because petitioner had not filed all required
tax returns was an abuse of discretion. We hold that it was not.
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the applicable years.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
A. Petitioner
Petitioner is a self-employed real estate broker who lived
in Gaithersburg, Maryland, when she filed the petition. She has
been a real estate broker from before 1990 to the time of trial.
She owned a business known as Sylvia International Realty. She
had not filed income tax returns for tax years 1988 through 2000
as of the time of trial.
B. Respondent’s Notice of Deficiency and Collection Activity
Relating to Petitioner’s 1988-89 Tax Years
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner for
tax years 1988-89, and petitioner timely filed a petition in this
Court. Sheryl Fast (Fast), a paralegal for respondent, worked
with petitioner in settling that case. In October and November
- 3 -
1996, petitioner signed stipulated decisions in which she agreed
that she had deficiencies in income tax of $1,113 for 1988 and
$3,426 for 1989 and was liable for additions to tax of $272.30
for 1988 and $1,086.50 for 1989 for failure to file a return
under section 6651(a) and failure to pay estimated tax under
section 6654. Petitioner also agreed that respondent could
assess and collect the deficiencies, additions to tax, and
interest. Respondent assessed petitioner’s tax for 1988-89 on
March 31, 1997.
C. Petitioner’s Offer In Compromise
Petitioner contacted Fast because petitioner received a
notice (not otherwise described in the record) from respondent
stating that she owed taxes for 1988-89. Fast told petitioner
how to submit an offer in compromise, and that respondent would
not consider her offer in compromise unless petitioner had filed
all required tax returns. Fast checked respondent’s computer
records and discovered that respondent had no record of
petitioner’s having filed returns for 1991-95. Fast told
petitioner that respondent would not collect taxes owed by
petitioner for 1988-89 until March 20, 1998, to give petitioner
time to submit an offer in compromise.
At a time not stated in the record, a friend of petitioner’s
delivered copies of what appeared to be two or three of
petitioner’s returns to Fast. Those copies did not have original
- 4 -
signatures. On February 2, 1998, petitioner gave Fast a copy of
what appeared to be her 1996 return, dated August 11, 1997. It
did not have an original signature.
On February 17, 1998, petitioner submitted a Form 656, Offer
in Compromise, to Fast. In it, petitioner offered to pay $1,500
of the taxes she owed for 1988-89. In a letter dated March 16,
1998, Fast told petitioner that she had received a copy of
petitioner’s 1991 return that did not have an original signature.
Fast also told petitioner that respondent would not consider the
offer in compromise because respondent had no record that
petitioner had filed original tax returns for 1991-95. Fast also
told petitioner that respondent would begin to collect tax from
her on March 20, 1998, and that petitioner must file returns for
1991-95 before respondent would process her offer in compromise.
In April 1998, petitioner gave Fast what appeared to be
copies of her tax returns for 1992, dated August 5, 1993, and for
1993, dated August 1, 1994. Those copies did not bear original
signatures.
Petitioner had not filed original returns for 1988-2000 as
of the time of trial, and had given Fast copies of what appeared
to be petitioner’s returns for only 4 of those 11 years.
D. Notice of Intent To Levy and Section 6330 Hearing
On October 25, 1999, respondent issued to petitioner a
Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing
- 5 -
relating to petitioner’s 1988-89 tax years. On November 16,
1999, petitioner filed a Request for a Collection Due Process
Hearing, Form 12153, related to her 1989 tax year in which she
stated that she wanted respondent to consider her offer in
compromise for that year. In her request for a hearing, she said
that she had health and financial difficulties.
Respondent’s Appeals officer, J. Chris Neighbor (Neighbor),
reviewed petitioner’s request for a hearing and her offer in
compromise. On February 18, 2000, Neighbor told petitioner by
letter that respondent would not consider her offer in compromise
because she had not filed returns for 1991-98. Neighbor
scheduled a hearing for March 14, 2000, to review petitioner’s
tax liabilities for 1988-891 and asked her to let him know within
10 days if she preferred a different date. He also asked
petitioner to give him the following items: (1) A financial
statement for petitioner and her business; (2) signed income tax
returns for 1991-98; (3) petitioner’s most recent mortgage
statement showing the remaining balance and the amount of the
monthly payment; and (4) information about Silvia International
Realty, such as whether it produces income and has employees.
Neighbor sent blank financial statement forms for petitioner to
complete.
1
Respondent apparently assumed petitioner requested a
hearing under sec. 6330(b) for both 1988 and 1989, even though
her request only stated 1989.
- 6 -
Petitioner did not complete the forms or send any mortgage
statements to Neighbor. On March 9, 2000, petitioner asked
Neighbor to reschedule the hearing because she was ill. On March
22, 2000, Neighbor rescheduled the hearing for May 25, 2000, and
again asked petitioner to give him the information described
above.
On May 18, 2000, petitioner sent copies of her 1991, 1992,
1993, and 1996 returns to Neighbor. The copies did not bear
original signatures. On May 24, 2000, petitioner asked
respondent to postpone the May 25 hearing for health reasons.
She told Neighbor she would contact him after June 1, 2000.
By letter dated June 19, 2000, Neighbor told petitioner
that, in consideration of her health problems, he had postponed
the May 25 hearing, and she had until July 20, 2000, to propose
collection alternatives. Neighbor told petitioner that
respondent had received from petitioner copies of certain
returns, but that original returns had not been filed with the
IRS. He invited her to contact him so that they could schedule a
hearing before July 20, 2000. He told her that he would issue a
notice of determination after that time.
On July 10, 2000, petitioner told Neighbor that she had
filed original returns with the Philadelphia Service Center;
however, she did not say which returns she had filed. She also
asked Neighbor to postpone the July 20, 2000, deadline to August
- 7 -
30, 2000, because of her poor health. On July 18, 2000,
petitioner sent some of the financial information to Neighbor
that he had requested. Petitioner did not give Neighbor any of
her mortgage statements.
Neighbor checked respondent’s records and found that
respondent had no record that petitioner had filed returns for
1991-98. Neighbor did not consider petitioner’s offer in
compromise because the Internal Revenue Manual, Part 5, Section
8, states that respondent will not consider offers in compromise
unless the taxpayer has filed all required tax returns.
On August 11, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 (the lien or levy determination), in which respondent
determined to proceed with collection of deficiencies in
petitioner’s income tax, additions to tax, and interest for 1988-
89.
OPINION
A. Whether Respondent Is Time Barred From Collecting
Petitioner’s Taxes for 1988-89
Petitioner contends that respondent is time barred from
collecting taxes she owes for 1988-89. For reasons stated next,
we conclude that respondent may collect taxes from petitioner for
1988-89.
A claim that the time to assess tax has expired is a
challenge to the underlying tax liability. Hoffman v.
- 8 -
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 140, 145 (2002); Boyd v. Commissioner, 117
T.C. 127, 130 (2001). Thus, petitioner may not now claim that
the assessment period expired before respondent issued the notice
of deficiency because she received a notice of deficiency and
could have raised that issue in her deficiency case. See sec.
6330(c)(2)(B).
Respondent is not time barred under section 6501 from
collecting or assessing tax due from petitioner for 1988-89
because she did not file returns for those years. Respondent is
also not time barred under section 6502 from collecting taxes due
from petitioner for 1988-89. The Commissioner may collect tax by
levy if the levy is made within 10 years after the assessment of
tax. Sec. 6502(a)(1). Petitioner signed decision documents in
1996, and respondent assessed petitioner’s taxes due for 1988-89
on March 31, 1997. Thus, respondent has at least until March 31,
2007, to collect petitioner’s 1988-89 taxes.
B. Whether Respondent’s Refusal To Consider Petitioner’s Offer
In Compromise for Tax Years 1988-89 Was an Abuse of
Discretion
Petitioner contends that respondent’s refusal to consider
her offer in compromise for 1988-89 because she had not filed all
required income tax returns was an abuse of discretion. We
disagree.
- 9 -
1. Whether Petitioner Had Filed All Required Tax Returns
Petitioner testified that she filed original income tax
returns for 1991-2000 with the Philadelphia Service Center. We
are not persuaded by her testimony. The parties stipulated the
admission into evidence of respondent’s Form 2866, Certificate of
Official Record, which states that respondent has no record of
petitioner’s having filed income tax returns for tax years 1988-
2000. Fast and Neighbor both testified that they searched
respondent’s records. Fast found that respondent had no record
that petitioner had filed returns for 1991-95. Neighbor found
that respondent had no record that petitioner had filed returns
for 1991-98. Respondent’s certificate of official record and the
testimony of Fast and Neighbor were more persuasive in showing
that petitioner had not filed returns for 1988-2000 than
petitioner’s testimony and the copies of some of her returns were
in showing that she had. Thus, we find that petitioner did not
file returns for 1988-2000.
Petitioner contends that respondent erred in not filing the
copies of the returns for 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996 that she
gave to Fast and Neighbor. We disagree. Those returns did not
include petitioner’s original signature. Sec. 6061(a); Beard v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766 (1984), affd. 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir.
1986); sec. 1.6061-1(a), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner did not
provide copies of her returns for 1990, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998,
- 10 -
1999, or 2000. Petitioner does not contend that she was not
required to file tax returns for any of these years. We conclude
that petitioner had not filed all required tax returns when she
filed her offer in compromise.
2. Whether Respondent’s Refusal To Consider Petitioner’s
Offer In Compromise Because Petitioner Had Not Filed
All Required Tax Returns Was an Abuse of Discretion
Petitioner contends that respondent’s refusal to consider
her offer in compromise because she had not filed required income
tax returns was unreasonable and thus an abuse of discretion. We
disagree.
Petitioner did not submit all of the financial information
supporting her offer in compromise that was requested by
Neighbor. The Commissioner will not process an offer that lacks
sufficient information to permit the Commissioner to evaluate its
acceptability. Sec. 301.7122-1T(c)(2), Temporary Proced. &
Admin. Regs., 64 Fed. Reg. 39020 (July 21, 1999). Section
5.8.3.3(2) and (4) of the Internal Revenue Manual, promulgated on
February 4, 2000, and in effect at all time relevant here,
provides that the Commissioner may not process an
offer in compromise if the taxpayer has not filed all required
tax returns. 2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH),
sec. 5.8.3.3(2), (4), at 16,283. The Commissioner’s decision not
to process an offer in compromise or a proposed collection
alternative from taxpayers who have not filed all required tax
- 11 -
returns is not an abuse of discretion. Londono v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-99; Ashley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-286;
Richter v. United States, 90 AFTR 2d 2002-5998, 2002-2 USTC par.
50,607 (C.D. Cal. 2002); AJP Mgmt. v. United States, 87 AFTR 2d
2001-347, 2001-1 USTC par. 50,184 (C.D. Cal. 2000); TTK Mgmt. v.
United States, 87 AFTR 2d 2001-350, 2001-1 USTC par. 50,185 (C.D.
Cal. 2000). The Commissioner may set reasonable priorities for
Internal Revenue Service staff as needed to effectively
administer the revenue laws. The decision not to accept the
offer in compromise submitted by petitioner on account of her
failure to file all required returns was an entirely reasonable
exercise of the Commissioner’s discretion in administering the
offer in compromise program.
We conclude that respondent’s determination to proceed with
collection as to petitioner’s 1988-89 tax liabilities was not an
abuse of discretion.
Accordingly,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.