T.C. Memo. 2007-73
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
MARTIN AND SHARON SMITH, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 3876-05L. Filed March 29, 2007.
Wendy S. Pearson, Terri A. Merriam, Jennifer A. Gellner,
Jaret R. Coles, and Asher B. Bearman, for petitioners.1
Thomas N. Tomashek and Gregory M. Hahn, for respondent.
1
Wendy S. Pearson (Pearson), Terri A. Merriam (Merriam),
Jennifer A. Gellner (Gellner), and Jaret R. Coles entered their
appearances in this case by subscribing the petition commencing
this proceeding. See Rule 24(a). (Unless otherwise indicated,
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure, and section references are to the applicable versions
of the Internal Revenue Code.) Asher B. Bearman entered his
appearance on July 18, 2005, and withdrew on Nov. 17, 2006.
Pearson and Gellner withdrew from the case on Oct. 24 and Nov.
14, 2006, respectively.
- 2 -
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
LARO, Judge: Petitioners Martin Smith (Smith) and Sharon
Smith petitioned the Court under section 6330(d) to review the
determination of respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals)
sustaining a proposed levy related to petitioners’ assessed
Federal income tax liability (inclusive of additions to tax,
penalties, and interest) for 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1991; that
liability totaled $79,461. Petitioners argue that the proposed
levy is improper because, they argue, Appeals was required to
accept their offer to pay $11,552 to compromise their assessed
and unassessed Federal income tax liability (inclusive of
additions to tax, penalties, and interest) for 1984 through 1996;
petitioners estimate that liability to total $265,023. We decide
whether Appeals abused its discretion in rejecting petitioners’
offer. We hold it did not.2
2
Petitioners also dispute a determination by Appeals
concerning their liability for increased interest under sec.
6621(c). As to this dispute, the parties agreed to be bound by a
final decision in Ertz v. Commissioner, docket No. 20336-04L,
which involved a similar issue. On Jan. 24, 2007, the Court held
in Ertz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-15, that the Court lacks
jurisdiction to decide the issue to which the parties agreed to
be bound. On the basis of Ertz v. Commissioner, supra, we shall
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the portion of this case that
concerns petitioners’ liability for increased interest under sec.
6621(c).
- 3 -
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties filed with the Court stipulations of fact and
accompanying exhibits. The stipulated facts are found
accordingly. Petitioners are husband and wife, and they resided
in Tucson, Arizona, when their petition was filed.
On their Federal income tax returns beginning in 1984,
petitioners claimed losses and credits from their investment in
several partnerships organized and operated by Walter J. Hoyt III
(Hoyt). The partnerships were subject to the unified audit and
litigation procedures of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648. Hoyt was
convicted on criminal charges relating to the promotion of these
partnerships.
Petitioners’ claim to the partnerships’ losses and credits
resulted in the underreporting of their personal 1984, 1985,
1986, and 1991 Federal income taxes. On November 13, 2003,
respondent mailed to petitioners a Letter 1058, Final Notice of
Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. The notice
informed petitioners that respondent proposed to levy on their
property to collect amounts owed as to their 1984, 1985, 1986,
and 1991 Federal income taxes; all of these amounts were
attributable to the just referenced underreporting of income.
The notice advised petitioners that they were entitled to a
- 4 -
hearing with Appeals to review the propriety of the proposed
levy.
On December 2, 2003, petitioners requested the referenced
hearing with Appeals. The request asserted in relevant part that
the proposed levy was inappropriate because: (1) Petitioners
were entitled to compromise their liability on account of
effective tax administration, given, they claimed, that the Hoyt
partnership cases were “longstanding” and petitioners were the
“unwitting victims” of fraud perpetrated by Hoyt; (2) interest
was required to be abated under section 6404(e), an issue,
petitioners noted, then pending before the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit in Mekulsia v. Commissioner, 389 F.3d 601 (6th
Cir. 2004), affg. T.C. Memo. 2003-138; (3) the Commissioner’s
imposition of tax-motivated interest for 1984 through 1986 was
inappropriate given the facts of the case; and (4) petitioners
were not given an opportunity to be heard during the examination
of the Hoyt partnerships in that, they claimed, they were
represented by Hoyt who had an impermissible conflict of interest
and was thus incapable of representing them properly.
On May 12, 2004, Nancy Driver (Driver), a settlement officer
in Appeals, contacted petitioners with respect to their request
by mailing a letter to Merriam, petitioners’ representative as
stated on a power of attorney. The letter, a copy of which was
mailed to petitioners, stated that Driver would contact
- 5 -
petitioners to schedule the hearing and asked petitioners to
tender the following items to Driver before the Hearing so that
she could explore a resolution: “Your proposal to resolve the
outstanding balance”; “Any documentation supporting your position
on any issue you wish to discuss”; “Completed and signed Form
433-A, Collection Information Statement for [Wage Earners and
Self-Employed] Individuals, along with supporting documentation”;
“Completed and signed Form 433-B, Collection Information
Statement for Businesses, along with supporting documentation.
This is required only if you own or have interest in a business”.
The letter stated that petitioners should provide the referenced
information to Driver by June 2, 2004. Pursuant to the request
of Gellner, who was also listed in a power of attorney as
petitioners’ representative, Driver extended the June 2, 2004,
date until June 30, 2004.
On June 29, 2004, petitioners submitted to Driver four
letters with accompanying exhibits; a signed and completed Form
656, Offer in Compromise, with an accompanying payment of a
related $150 fee; and a signed and completed Form 433-A with
supporting documentation. Through this submission, petitioners
offered to pay the Commissioner $11,552 to compromise what they
estimated was their $265,023 assessed and unassessed Federal
income tax liability (inclusive of additions to tax, penalties,
and interest) for 1984 through 1996. Each of the four letters
- 6 -
included in the submission related to a different topic
designated by petitioners as such, the four topics being:
(1) A presentation of the facts and arguments related to the
hearing, including an explanation of the offer amount and medical
and retirement considerations; (2) a delay in the determination
and assessment of their liabilities due to the criminal
investigation of Hoyt; (3) effective tax administration; and
(4) tax-motivated interest under section 6621(c). The Form 656
was signed by each petitioner on June 14, 2004, and stated that
petitioners were making their offer-in-compromise on the grounds
of effective tax administration and doubt as to collectibility.
The Form 433-A was signed by each petitioner on June 14, 2004,
and reported that petitioners owned the following assets with a
current value (net of reported liabilities) of $124,038:3
Checking account $933
Money market account 576
IRAs1:
Vanguard 25,529
Zurich 31,161 56,690
Stock of GE/Motorola 8,165
Vehicles:
Ford Ranger 7,085
Less loan balance 10,997
(3,912)
Mercury Grand Marquis 4,920 1,008
3
Form 433-A states that each asset reported on the form
should be valued at its “Current value”, defined on the form as
“the amount you could sell the asset for today”.
- 7 -
Home2 160,648
Less mortgage loan balance 103,982 56,666
124,038
1
The reported values of the IRAs (individual retirement
accounts) equal 70 percent of their account balances.
Petitioners reported the lesser values to reflect their
liability for income tax on a liquidation of the accounts.
2
The reported value equals the home’s assessed value.
The Form 433-A reported that petitioners had no disposable
income, listing that their monthly income totaled $3,223 and
their monthly living expenses totaled $4,042.4 The income was
reportedly attributable to Smith’s receipt of Social Security
and/or a pension.5 The living expenses were reportedly
attributable to the following items:
Food, clothing, and miscellaneous: $801
1
Housing and utilities: 1,360
2
Transportation: 715
3
Health care: 262
Taxes (income and FICA): 130
Life insurance: 259
4
Attorney fees: 479
4,006
1
The Form 433-A reports that petitioners’ monthly
payment on their mortgage loan was $899 and that they
were required to make these payments until 2026.
2
The Form 433-A reports that petitioners’ monthly
payment on their car loan was $349.
3
Petitioners told Driver that they were experiencing
4
The listed expenses reported as totaling $4,042 actually
total $4,006.
5
Petitioners’ 2003 Federal income tax return reported that
they had $34,885 of adjusted gross income and $14,798 of taxable
income.
- 8 -
various medical complications and were required to take
various prescription and other medications.
Petitioners never claimed to Driver that the monthly
cost of these complications and medications exceeded
their reported monthly health care costs.
4
These attorney fees are apparently related to
this litigation.
By way of a letter dated October 18, 2004, Driver notified
petitioners that she had scheduled their hearing (requested by
petitioners as a telephonic hearing) for November 18, 2004. The
letter also stated that Driver had learned from third parties
that petitioners apparently owned certain assets which were not
reported on their Form 433-A, specifically, an IRA valued at
$54,405 with Indianapolis Life Insurance Company (Indianapolis
Life); two lots of real estate sited in Apache County, Arizona;
and one lot of real estate sited in Pima County, Arizona. In
reply to the letter’s request that petitioners explain why the
referenced assets were not included on the Form 433-A,
petitioners, on October 28, 2004, acknowledged that they owned
the IRA with Indianapolis Life and the lots of real estate and
that they had left those assets off of their Form 433-A.
Petitioners stated in the letter that the IRA had been overlooked
in preparing the Form 433-A. Petitioners stated in the letter
that they had forgotten about the three unreported lots which,
they stated, were worthless.
On November 18, 2004, Driver held the scheduled hearing with
petitioners’ counsel. At that time, Smith and his wife were 68
- 9 -
and 64 years old, respectively. Driver made the following
calculation in determining that petitioners’ net realizable
equity in assets was $161,844:
Assets and Liabilities Reported on Form 433-A
IRAs:
Vanguard 25,529
Zurich 31,161 56,690
Stock of GE/Motorola 8,165
Home 160,648
Less mortgage loan balance 103,982 56,666
121,521
Other Assets
1
IRA: Indianapolis Life 38,823
2
Lots in Apache and Pima Counties 1,500
40,323
Net realizable equity in assets 161,844
1
This amount equals 70 percent of the $55,462 balance
in this account as of Sept. 30, 2004.
2
This amount equals $1,300 less than the total assessed
values of these lots.
Driver calculated petitioners’ reasonable collection potential to
be $161,844, the same amount as their net realizable equity in
assets; in other words, Driver determined that petitioners had no
disposable income.
On January 26, 2005, Appeals issued petitioners the notice
of determination sustaining the proposed levy as to 1984, 1985,
1986, and 1991. The notice reflects Driver’s conclusion that
petitioners’ offer of $11,552 was inadequate under the applicable
guidelines and that the proposed levy balances the need for the
- 10 -
efficient collection of taxes with the concern that the proposed
levy be no more intrusive than necessary. As to the former
conclusion, the notice states:
Taxpayers challenged the proposed enforcement
collection action by levy.
Taxpayers submitted an Offer in Compromise, Doubt as to
Collectibility and Effective Tax Administration, in the
amount of $11,552.00 during the CDP proceedings. The
OIC was not an acceptable collection alternative and
was rejected.
Taxpayers did not disclose all assets on the Collection
Information Statements attached to the offer. They did
not disclose assets which constituted about 25% of
their net realizable equity. By not disclosing their
complete financial status, this Appeals Officer is
concerned about their good faith effort to resolve this
matter. They were not forthcoming in establishing
their financial status.
This Appeals Officer concluded the offer should not be
accepted under doubt as to collectibility because
taxpayers have sufficient assets to pay the assessed
liability. Further, the offer should not be accepted
under effective tax administration as it would
undermine compliance by taxpayers with the tax laws.
Taxpayers included in the offer years that have
unresolved TEFRA issues, thus the liability has not
been assessed. During the Collection Due Process
proceedings taxpayers did not resolve the years with
TEFRA issues by entering into settlement agreements.
Taxpayers did not propose any other acceptable
collection alternatives. Taxpayers declined to pay the
outstanding liability.
The proposed collection enforcement action by levy is
valid and appropriate.
The notice further states:
The proposed collection action by levy balances the
need for the efficient collection of taxes with the
- 11 -
concern that collection action be no more intrusive
than necessary. Taxpayer [sic] did not propose any
acceptable collection alternatives.
The notice of determination also addresses the other claims
made by petitioners in their request for a hearing, in support of
their assertion that the proposed levy was inappropriate. First,
the notice notes that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
held in Mekulsia v. Commissioner, 389 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004),
that the taxpayer was not entitled to an abatement of interest.
Second, the notice states that petitioners never established that
their facts did not support the imposition of interest under
section 6621(c). Third, the notice indicates that petitioners
never discussed at the hearing their claim that they were not
given an opportunity to be heard during the examination and,
hence, that Driver considered that issue to be abandoned.
OPINION
This case is yet another in a long list of cases brought in
this Court involving respondent’s proposal to levy on the assets
of a partner in a Hoyt partnership to collect Federal income
taxes attributable to the partner’s participation in the
partnership. In each of the other prior cases, all of which were
brought by Merriam as either counsel or co-counsel, this Court
has sustained respondent’s right to levy on the assets of the
petitioning taxpayer (or, in the case of joint returns, the
petitioning taxpayers). See Hansen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
- 12 -
2007-56; Catlow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-47; Estate of
Andrews v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-30; Freeman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-28; Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2007-29; Abelein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-24;
Hubbart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-26; Carter v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-25; Ertz v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2007-15; McDonough v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-234;
Lindley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-229; Blondheim v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-216; Clayton v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2006-188; Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166;
Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150. As was equally true
as to the taxpayers in many of those prior cases, petitioners
here made a lowball offer to Appeals to compromise their tax debt
and now argue in this Court that Appeals’s rejection of their
offer was an abuse of discretion because, generally speaking,
they claim that the Appeals officer did not appreciate the
specifics of their case.
Where an underlying tax liability is not at issue in a case
invoking our jurisdiction under section 6330(d), we review a
determination of Appeals for abuse of discretion. See Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). We reject the
determination of Appeals only if the determination was arbitrary,
capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Cox v.
Commissioner, 126 T.C. 237, 255 (2006); Murphy v. Commissioner,
- 13 -
125 T.C. 301, 308, 320 (2005), affd. 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006).
Where we decide the propriety of Appeals’s rejection of an
offer-in-compromise, as we do here, we review the reasoning
underlying that rejection to decide whether the rejection was
arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
We do not substitute our judgment for that of Appeals, and we do
not decide independently the amount that we believe would be an
acceptable offer-in-compromise. See Murphy v. Commissioner,
supra at 320; Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163; Fargo
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-13, affd. 447 F.3d 706 (9th Cir.
2006). Nor do we usually consider arguments, issues, or other
matters raised for the first time at trial, but we limit
ourselves to matter brought to the attention of Appeals.
See Murphy v. Commissioner, supra at 308; Magana v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002). “[E]vidence that * * * [a taxpayer]
might have presented at the section 6330 hearing (but chose not
to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to section
6330(d)(1) because it is not relevant to the question of whether
the Appeals officer abused her discretion.” Murphy v.
Commissioner, supra at 315.6
6
In Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301 (2005), affd.
469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006), the Court declined to include in the
record external evidence relating to facts not presented to
Appeals. The Court distinguished Robinette v. Commissioner,
123 T.C. 85 (2004), revd. 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006), and held
that the external evidence was inadmissible in that it was not
(continued...)
- 14 -
Section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii) allows a taxpayer to offer to
compromise a Federal tax debt as a collection alternative to a
proposed levy. Section 7122(c) authorizes the Commissioner to
prescribe guidelines to determine when a taxpayer’s offer-in-
compromise should be accepted. The applicable regulations,
section 301.7122-1(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs., list three grounds
on which the Commissioner may accept an offer-in-compromise of a
Federal tax debt. These grounds are “Doubt as to liability”,
“Doubt as to collectibility”, and to “Promote effective tax
administration”. Sec. 301.7122-1(b)(1), (2), and (3), Proced. &
Admin. Regs.
Petitioners argue in brief that Appeals (acting through
Driver) abused its discretion by not accepting their offer to
compromise their tax liability on the ground of effective tax
administration in that, they assert, Driver did not adequately
6
(...continued)
relevant to the issue of whether Appeals abused its discretion.
In a memorandum that petitioners filed with the Court on
April 13, 2006, pursuant to an order of the Court directing
petitioners to explain the relevancy of any external evidence
that they desired to include in the record of this case,
petitioners made no claim that they had offered any of the
external evidence to Driver. Instead, as we read petitioners’
memorandum in the light of the record as a whole, petitioners
wanted to include the external evidence in the record of this
case to prove that Driver abused her discretion by not
considering facts and documents that they had consciously decided
not to give to her. Consistent with Murphy v. Commissioner,
supra, we sustained respondent’s relevancy objections to the
external evidence.
- 15 -
consider the specifics of their case.7 The Commissioner may
compromise a tax liability to promote effective tax
administration when collection of the full liability will create
economic hardship and the compromise would not undermine
compliance with the tax laws by taxpayers in general. See sec.
301.7122-1(b)(3)(i), (iii), Proced. & Admin. Regs. If a taxpayer
does not qualify for effective tax administration compromise on
grounds of economic hardship, the regulations also allow the
Commissioner to compromise a tax liability to promote effective
tax administration when the taxpayer identifies compelling
considerations of public policy or equity. See sec.
301.7122-1(b)(3)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Driver considered all of the evidence submitted to her by
petitioners, and she applied the guidelines for evaluating an
offer-in-compromise to promote effective tax administration. She
determined that petitioners’ offer was unacceptable because,
among other reasons, they were not forthcoming in establishing
7
Petitioners’ posttrial opening brief also states as an
issue the question of whether Appeals abused its discretion by
rejecting petitioners’ request for an offer-in-compromise on the
ground of doubt as to collectibility. The brief does not,
however, advance any direct argument on this issue, stating
instead that the resolution of the issue is controlled by our
decision on petitioners’ claim of effective tax administration.
We consider petitioners to have waived any independent claim of
error related to Appeals’s rejection of their offer-in-compromise
on the ground of doubt as to collectibility and limit our
discussion to Appeals’s rejection of petitioners’ offer-in-
compromise on the ground of effective tax administration.
- 16 -
their financial status and acceptance of the offer would
undermine compliance with the tax laws by taxpayers in general.
She determined that petitioners’ offer to pay $11,552 was
unacceptable because they had the financial wherewithal to pay
more than that amount. Driver’s ultimate determination to reject
petitioners’ $11,552 offer-in-compromise was not arbitrary,
capricious, or without a sound basis in fact or law, and it was
not abusive or unfair to petitioners. Her determination was
based on a reasonable application of the guidelines, which we
decline to second-guess. See Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C.
165 (2005), affd. 454 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 2006).
In their posttrial opening brief, petitioners essentially
make four arguments in advocating a contrary result. First,
petitioners argue that Driver did not adequately consider their
unique facts and circumstances. We disagree. Driver reviewed
and considered all information given to her by petitioners. On
the basis of the facts and circumstances of petitioners’ case as
gleaned from that information, as well as learned from other
information obtained during her independent analysis, Driver
determined that petitioners’ offer did not meet the applicable
guidelines for acceptance of an offer-in-compromise to promote
effective tax administration because acceptance of that offer
would undermine compliance with the tax laws by taxpayers in
general. We find no abuse of discretion in that determination.
- 17 -
Nor do we find that Driver inadequately considered the
information given to her by petitioners. Driver accepted all of
the values for assets, liabilities, income, and expenses given to
her by petitioners on their Form 433-A, and she only increased
the value of petitioners’ total assets to take into account the
unreported assets which she uncovered during her independent
analysis. Indeed, even in the case of the unreported assets,
Driver’s valuation of those assets did not significantly depart
from petitioners’ valuation of those assets.8 We find that
Driver gave thorough consideration to all of petitioners’ claims
in the light of all of the facts that were communicated to her by
petitioners or were otherwise learned by her from other sources.
As petitioners view this issue, the opinion of the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fargo v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d
706 (9th Cir. 2006), requires that Appeals accept their $11,552
offer because, they claim, their investment in the Hoyt
partnerships was not purely tax motivated, they were victims of
Hoyt’s fraud, and respondent and Hoyt caused a significant delay
in the resolution of respondent’s examinations of the Hoyt
partnerships. We do not read Fargo v. Commissioner, supra, as
8
Petitioners’ sole dispute with Driver’s valuation of their
assets relates to the unreported lots, which petitioners contend
had no value. We cannot fathom that the lots had no value
whatsoever, and we do not believe that it was an abuse of
Driver’s discretion to value each lot at a minimal average value
of $500.
- 18 -
broadly as petitioners. Fargo does not support their claim that
Appeals was automatically required to accept petitioners’
bargain-basement offer of $11,552. It cannot be gainsaid that a
significant motivation of their investment in the Hoyt tax
shelters was to realize tax savings.
Petitioners also argue that their offer was required to be
accepted because they adequately demonstrated that they will
suffer economic hardship if required to pay their assessed tax
liability in full. To this end, petitioners state, Driver
ignored both their medical issues and their age and retirement
status in making her determination, and it is “reasonably
foreseeable” that they will need all of their home equity and
retirement assets to compensate for this shortfall and to use for
their care and support in the future. By petitioners’ count,
their monthly income is exceeded by their monthly expenses,
creating a deficit of $819 (i.e., monthly income of $3,223 less
monthly living expenses of $4,042), and Driver’s analysis
requires that they liquidate all of their retirement accounts and
home equity in order to pay their tax liability.
We disagree with petitioners that they have demonstrated
that requiring them to pay more than $11,552 towards their
assessed tax liability will result in an economic hardship.9 The
9
Even if they had shown economic hardship, a compromise on
the basis of effective tax administration will not be made if it
(continued...)
- 19 -
record establishes that Driver, when she made her determination,
did know the specifics of petitioners’ age and financial status
(including the amount and sources of petitioners’ income) and
that she accepted the amount of the monthly medical expenses
reported to her by petitioners on their Form 433-A. Driver was
not required on her own initiative to increase arbitrarily the
amount of those reported medical expenses to reflect the
possibility that petitioners would incur additional medical costs
in the future. See Fargo v. Commissioner, supra at 710.
Driver’s analysis focused on petitioners’ $79,461 assessed
liability, and petitioners’ net realizable equity in assets was
$161,844, an amount that exceeds petitioners’ assessed liability
by $82,383. We do not consider Appeals to have abused its
discretion by rejecting petitioners’ claim that they will suffer
an economic hardship if required to pay more than their $11,552
offer.10
9
(...continued)
would undermine compliance with the tax laws by taxpayers in
general, see sec. 301.7122-1(b)(3)(iii), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
and Driver determined that petitioners failed to meet that
essential requirement.
10
Petitioners argue that Driver’s analysis is flawed in
that she considered only their assessed tax liability and not
their assessed and unassessed tax liability. In that Driver
concluded that petitioners’ offer of $11,552 in compromise of
their $79,461 assessed tax liability was unacceptable,
petitioners have not explained to our satisfaction how increasing
the stated assessed liability almost threefold to reflect the
amount of the unassessed liability would then make their offer
(continued...)
- 20 -
Second, petitioners argue that public policy demands that
their offer-in-compromise be accepted because they were victims
of fraud. We disagree. While the regulations do not set forth a
specific standard for evaluating an offer-in-compromise based on
claims of public policy or equity, the regulations contain two
illustrative examples. See sec. 301.7122-1(c)(3)(iv), Examples
(1) and (2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The first example describes
a taxpayer who is seriously ill and unable to file income tax
returns for several years. The second example describes a
taxpayer who received erroneous advice from the Commissioner as
to the tax effect of the taxpayer’s actions. Neither example
bears any resemblance to this case. See Speltz v. Commissioner,
454 F.3d at 786. Unlike the exceptional circumstances
exemplified in the regulations, petitioners’ situation is neither
unique nor exceptional in that petitioners’ situation mirrors
that of numerous taxpayers who claimed tax shelter deductions in
the 1980s and 1990s, obtained the tax advantages, promptly forgot
about their “investment”, and now realize that paying their taxes
may require a change of lifestyle.11
10
(...continued)
acceptable.
11
Of course, the examples in the regulations are not meant
to be exhaustive, and petitioners’ situation is not identical to
that of the taxpayers in Fargo v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d 706, 714
(9th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-13, regarding whom the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that “no evidence
(continued...)
- 21 -
We also agree with Driver that compromising petitioners’
case on grounds of public policy or equity would not promote
effective tax administration. While petitioners portray
themselves as victims of Hoyt’s alleged fraud and respondent’s
alleged delay in dealing with Hoyt, they take no responsibility
for their tax predicament. We cannot agree that acceptance by
respondent of petitioners’ $11,552 offer to satisfy their
estimated $265,023 tax liability would enhance voluntary
compliance by other taxpayers. A compromise on that basis would
place the Government in the unenviable role of an insurer against
poor business decisions by taxpayers, reducing the incentive for
taxpayers to investigate thoroughly the consequences of
transactions into which they enter. It would be particularly
inappropriate for the Government to play that role here, where
the transaction at issue involves a tax shelter. Reducing the
risks of participating in tax shelters would encourage more
11
(...continued)
was presented to suggest that Taxpayers were the subject of fraud
or deception”. Such considerations, however, have not kept this
Court from finding investors in Hoyt’s shelters to be culpable of
negligence, see, e.g., Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2006-131, nor prevented the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth,
Ninth, and Tenth Circuits from affirming our decisions to that
effect in Hansen v. Commissioner, 471 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2006),
affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-269; Mortensen v. Commissioner, 440 F.3d
375 (6th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-279; and Van Scoten v.
Commissioner, 439 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo.
2004-275.
- 22 -
taxpayers to run those risks, thus undermining rather than
enhancing compliance with the tax laws.12
Third, petitioners argue that Driver failed to balance
efficient collection with the legitimate concern that collection
through the proposed levy be no more intrusive than necessary.
We disagree. Driver thoroughly considered this balancing issue
on the basis of the information and proposed collection
alternative (offer-in-compromise) given to her by petitioners.
She concluded that the proposed levy action was an appropriate
means for collecting the liabilities at issue. She thoroughly
considered petitioners’ arguments for accepting their offer-in-
compromise, and she rejected the offer only after concluding that
petitioners could pay more of their tax liability than the
$11,552 they offered. Cf. Internal Revenue Manual sec.
5.8.11.2.1(11) (“When hardship criteria are identified but the
taxpayer does not offer an acceptable amount, the offer should
not be recommended for acceptance”).
12
Nor does the fact that petitioners’ case may be
“longstanding” overcome the detrimental impact on voluntary
compliance that could result from respondent’s accepting
petitioners’ offer-in-compromise. An example in Internal Revenue
Manual sec. 5.8.11.2.2 implicitly addresses the “longstanding”
issue. There, the taxpayer invested in a tax shelter in 1983,
thereby incurring tax liabilities for 1981 through 1983. He
failed to accept a settlement offer by respondent that would have
eliminated a substantial portion of his interest and penalties.
Although the example, which is similar to petitioners’ case in
several respects, would qualify as a “longstanding” case by
petitioners’ standards, the offer was not acceptable because
acceptance of it would undermine compliance with the tax laws.
- 23 -
Fourth, petitioners argue that Driver inappropriately failed
to consider whether they qualified for an abatement of interest
for reasons other than those described in section 6404(e). We
disagree. We find nothing to suggest that Driver believed that
petitioners’ sole remedy for interest abatement in this case
rested on the rules of section 6404(e). In fact, regardless of
the rules of section 6404(e), Driver obviously would have abated
interest in this case had she agreed to let petitioners
compromise their liability by paying less than the amount of
interest included within that liability. All the same, we find
no basis in the evidence for an abatement of interest, nor any
abuse of discretion by Driver in denying their request for
abatement. Cf. Mekulsia v. Commissioner, 389 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.
2004).
We hold that Appeals (acting through Driver) did not abuse
its discretion in rejecting petitioners’ $11,552 offer-in-
compromise. In so holding, we express no opinion as to the
amount of any compromise that petitioners could or should be
required to pay, or that respondent is required to accept. The
only issue before us is whether Appeals abused its discretion in
refusing to accept petitioners' specific offer-in-compromise in
the amount of $11,552. See Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at
179-180. We have considered all arguments made by petitioners
- 24 -
for a contrary holding, and we have found those arguments not
discussed herein to be without merit.
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.