T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-21
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
SHIRLEY DEAN POWERS, a.k.a. SHIRLEY POWERS GILCHRIST, Petitioner
v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5057-04S. Filed February 23, 2005.
Shirley Dean Powers, a.k.a. Shirley Powers Gilchrist, pro
se.
Innessa Glazman Molot, for respondent.
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
pursuant to the provisions of sections 6330(d) and 7463.1 The
decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and
this opinion should not be cited as authority.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
- 2 -
Respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330
(notice of determination) for unpaid Federal income tax and
related liabilities for 1996 and 1997.2 The notice of
determination asserts that the unpaid balance is $4,249.07.
The issue for decision is whether respondent abused his
discretion by rejecting petitioner’s offer in compromise (OIC).
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. Petitioner resided in Cheverly, Maryland, at the time the
petition was filed.
Petitioner filed a 1996 Federal income tax return on June
17, 1997, and timely filed a 1997 Federal income tax return on or
before April 15, 1998. The 1996 and 1997 returns each reflected
tax due. There was no remittance with either of the returns.
Respondent assessed the taxes due for 1996 and 1997.
Respondent issued petitioner a notice of intent to levy for
the 1993 through 1997 taxable years. Petitioner submitted a
timely Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.
Petitioner also submitted an OIC. The Appeals officer rejected
petitioner’s OIC, noting that petitioner’s offered amount of $100
for the liabilities outstanding for the tax years 1993 through
2
Respondent, in the notice of determination, conceded the
outstanding tax liabilities for 1993, 1994, and 1995.
- 3 -
1997 was inadequate. The Appeals officer concluded that
petitioner’s monthly disposable income was $463.39 and that the
monthly disposable income for the next 48 months totaled
$22,242.72. After conceding the liabilities for 1993, 1994, and
1995 the Appeals officer concluded that the offer of $100 was
“paltry” considering the outstanding debt of $4,249.07 for 1996
and 1997.
On February 24, 2004, the Appeals Office issued the notice
of determination sustaining its determination to proceed with
collection of the outstanding liabilities for the 1996 and 1997
taxable years. As indicated, the notice of determination also
indicated that collection action would not be sustained with
respect to the outstanding tax liabilities for 1993, 1994, and
1995, and that said liabilities should be abated.
Discussion
This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the
Commissioner’s administrative determinations. Sec. 6330(d).
Where, as here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is
not at issue, we review the determination for abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000). In so doing, we do
not conduct an independent review of what would be an acceptable
offer in compromise. Van Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-346. We review only whether the Appeals officer’s refusal
- 4 -
to accept petitioner’s OIC was arbitrary, capricious, or without
sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112
T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Under section 6330, a taxpayer is entitled to a hearing in
which he or she may raise any relevant issue relating to the
unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including offers of collection
alternatives such as an offer in compromise. Sec. 6330(b) and
(c)(2). Petitioner appears to contend that the Appeals officer
should have conceded the tax liabilities for 1996 and 1997,
consistent with his concession of the tax liabilities for 1993,
1994, and 1995. Petitioner does not otherwise present any
argument that the Appeals officer’s rejection of the OIC was an
abuse of discretion.
The Appeals officer conceded petitioner’s tax liabilities
for 1993, 1994, and 1995 because the IRS had failed to maintain
the administrative files and the IRS records were insufficient to
pursue collection. However, this was not the situation with
respect to 1996 and 1997. Petitioner’s position simply makes no
sense given the disparate circumstances. Respondent’s rejection
of the OIC was based on an analysis of petitioner’s financial
information. On the basis of the information considered by the
Appeals officer, we cannot conclude that rejection of
petitioner’s OIC was an abuse of discretion. See Van Vlaenderen
v. Commissioner, supra; Crisan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
- 5 -
318; Willis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-302; O’Brien v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-290; Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-129. Petitioner’s OIC of $100 was not based on any
analysis. Petitioner failed to provide information or explain
how she arrived at her conclusions. Indeed, when the Court asked
petitioner to explain why she disagreed with respondent’s
analysis of her OIC, she failed to provide an adequate
explanation. We are satisfied that respondent did not abuse his
discretion in making his determination.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To give effect to the foregoing,
An appropriate decision will
be entered for respondent.