William J. and Lois J. DiCindio v. Commissioner.Dkt. No. 7029-03L , TC Memo. 2007-77, 93 TCM 1060, April 2, 2007.
The IRS's determination to reject a married couple's offer-in-compromise (OIC) and proceed with collection of tax liabilities was not an abuse of discretion. Returning the OIC for additional information was not arbitrary and capricious, and the decision not to process the OIC because the couple failed to provide additional requested information was consistent with the prescribed guidelines and was a reasonable exercise of the IRS's discretion. It was also not an abuse of discretion to reject the couple's OIC because they failed to submit additional information before the court ruled on their pending motion for reconsideration. An extension of any deadlines related to the IRS's processing of the OIC would not have changed the OIC's disposition. --
William J. and Lois J. DiCindio, pro se; Donald M. Brachfeld, for respondent.
COLVIN, Chief Judge: Respondent sent a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s)
Under 1 and/or 2 Thereafter petitioners timely filed a petition in which they requested our review of respondent's determination. The issue for decision is whether respondent's determination to reject petitioners' offer-in-compromise (OIC) and proceed with collection was an abuse of discretion. We hold that it was not.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioners are married and resided in Edison, New Jersey, at the time the petition was filed.
Respondent issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing to petitioners on September 5, 2002. Petitioners timely requested a collection due process hearing on October 1, 2002. Petitioners' outstanding tax liability is $463,496 plus statutory additions. Petitioners did not challenge the assessments or the underlying tax liabilities. A settlement officer (SO) from respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals) spoke on the telephone with petitioners' representative on February 4, 2003. The SO told petitioners' representative that collection alternatives such as an OIC or an installment agreement would not be considered because of petitioners' poor compliance record. Respondent issued the notice of determination on April 8, 2003, sustaining the levy.
In the petition, petitioners alleged errors in the notice of determination, specifically that Appeals failed to give them a fair hearing and that Appeals failed to act properly with regard to the collection activity. After the petition was filed, counsel for respondent requested that Appeals discuss collection alternatives with petitioners at a face-to-face hearing. Petitioner3 and respondent's SO met on September 9, 2003, and discussed collection alternatives. Petitioners submitted an OIC on November 6, 2003. On December 1, 2003, the SO sent petitioners a letter requesting that they complete missing items on the form and submit additional information.
Petitioners contend that respondent's refusal to consider their offer-in-compromise submitted on November 15, 2005, for the years in issue was an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
Petitioners contend that respondent's rejection of their OIC while a motion for reconsideration was pending before the Court was an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
The granting of a motion to reconsider rests in the discretion of the Court. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Commissioner
We have no reason to believe that an extension to August would have changed the disposition of petitioners' offer-in-compromise. The reason for the requested extension was to file petitioner's 2005 income tax return. However, the filing of petitioner's 2005 income tax return was not a requirement of respondent's acceptance of the offer. The OS knew that petitioner had requested an extension for filing his 2005 taxes. The information that the OS needed, however, had to do with additional information to verify and confirm the data on the submitted OIC. Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion to reject petitioners' OIC on account of their failure to submit additional information before the Court ruled on petitioners' pending motion for reconsideration.
We conclude that respondent may proceed with collection of petitioners' tax liabilities for 1985-89 and 1991-2001 because respondent's rejection of petitioners' offer-in-compromise was not an abuse of discretion.