Leshin v. Comm'r
This text of 2008 T.C. Memo. 281 (Leshin v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, the supplemental stipulation of facts, and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time they filed the petition, petitioners resided in California.
On December 14, 2005, respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) regarding petitioners' 2001 tax year. On December 16, 2005, respondent mailed to petitioners a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under
Petitioners timely submitted a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, regarding 2001 to respondent.
On or about April 6, 2006, *279 respondent received Form 656, Offer in Compromise (OIC), from petitioners. Petitioners offered to pay $ 70,000 to satisfy their total outstanding tax liabilities of approximately $ 225,115 for 1999 through 2004. 2 As of the date of the notice of determination, petitioners' income tax liability for 2001 was approximately $ 36,480.
Attached to the OIC was Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals. The information provided on the Form 433-A was incomplete. For example, petitioners did not list the current value of a 2004 Chevrolet, petitioners listed no monthly income even though they indicated they were self-employed, and petitioners indicated that they received income from stocks but did not submit any documentation related to such income (i.e., listing the amount of dividends received). 3
Respondent's settlement officer wrote petitioners' counsel requesting additional information. *280 Additionally, on April 18, 2006, respondent's settlement officer requested a Form 433-B, Collection Information Statement for Businesses, regarding petitioners' hay sales business. Petitioners failed to provide any information on their business during the section 6330 hearing.
During 1999 through 2005 petitioners sold stocks and bonds with a value of over $ 500,000. However, they did not use these proceeds to pay their outstanding tax liabilities for those years.
Based on the incomplete information provided by petitioners, respondent determined their monthly future income potential was $ 4,386 ($ 11,086 in monthly income less $ 6,700 for reasonable expenses). Petitioners' present value of future income was $ 210,528 ($ 4,386 per month x 48 months). This amount alone resulted in a reasonable collection potential (RCP) well in excess of the amount owed for 2001 -- $ 36,480. 4
Until July 14, 2006, respondent's settlement officer provided petitioners with several opportunities to dispute any and all aspects of her RCP calculations. Petitioners' counsel *281 did not contest respondent's RCP calculation until two weeks after the July 14, 2006, deadline.
On August 16, 2006, respondent issued the notice of determination to petitioners and sustained the filing of the NFTL. Respondent concluded that petitioners' RCP exceeded the $ 70,000 offered in the OIC. Accordingly, the settlement officer rejected petitioners' OIC.
OPINION
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2008 T.C. Memo. 281, 96 T.C.M. 453, 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leshin-v-commr-tax-2008.