TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Michael Poindexter
Docket Number: 14979-05L
Judge: Foley
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 04/15/2008
Pages: 6

T .C . Memo . 2008-9 9 UNITED STATES TAX COURT MICHAEL POINDEXTER, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 14979-05L . Filed April 15, 2008 . Larry D . Harvey , for petitioner . Sara J . Barkley , for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N FOLEY, Judge : The issue for decision is whether respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the default of petitioner's offer-in-compromise and determining to proceed with collection . SERVED APR 15 2008 - 2 - FINDINGS OF FAC T On November 21, 1997, respondent accepted petitioner and his wife Nancy Poindexter's joint offer-in-compromise (OIC) relating to tax years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 (original tax liability) . The OIC required petitioner to file timely al l Federal income tax returns and pay timely all Federal income taxes due for the 5 years following acceptance of the OIC or until the OIC was paid in full, whichever was longer . Petitione r failed to timely pay his 2000 and 2001 Federal income taxes . On October 22, 2003, respondent sent petitioner a letter advising him of the outstanding balances relating to 2000 and 2001 and notifying him that failure to pay the balances within 30 days would result in a default on the OIC and reinstatement of the original tax liability . Petitioner, in a letter dated November 22, 2003, requested an additional 6 months to pay the outstanding balances relating to 2000 and 2001 . On December 19, 2003, respondent entered petitioner's default on the OIC in the system . On September 9, 2004, respondent mailed petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing relating .to 1993, 1994, and 1995 . On September 23, 2004, petitioner timely filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing . On December 21, 2004, more - 3 - than a year after the OIC default, petitioner paid the outstanding balances relating to 2000 and 2001 . On or about April 26, 2005, a collection due process hearing (CDP hearing) was held, during which petitioner contended that collection was improper because the OIC should not have been defaulted . On July 14, 2005, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 finding that default of the OIC was procedurally and legally, correct, and that it was proper to proceed with the levy . Petitioner filed his petition with the Court on August 12, 2005, while residing in Colorado . OPINION Pursuant to Robinette v . Commissioner , 123 T .C . 85, 93-94 (2004), revd . on other grounds 439 F .3d 455 (8th Cir . 2006), the underlying tax liabilities are not at issue and we review respondent's determination for an abuse of discretion . To prevail on an abuse of discretion claim, the taxpayer must show that the Commissioner's actions were arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in law or fact . See Giamelli v . Commissioner , 129 T .C . 107, 111 (2007) ; Woodral v . Commissioner , - 4 - 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) . Section 6330(c)(3)1 provides that in making a determination, the Appeals officer must verify that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have been met, consider the issues raised by the taxpayer, an d consider whether the proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's legitimate concern that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary . Petitioner contends that the Appeals officer abused her discretion by sustaining the default of the OIC . We disagree . The OIC, which was accepted on November 21, 1997, required petitioner to pay timely all Federal income taxes due for the 5 years following acceptance . Petitioner failed to pay his 2000 and 2001 taxes in a timely manner and did not respond in a timely manner to respondent's letter advising him of the impending OIC default . In addition, petitioner did not propose collection alternatives . Under these circumstances, the Appeals officer's actions were appropriate . We also note that petitioner asserts that the Appeals officer abused her discretion by failing to adhere to certain instructions that petitioner contends were contained in the Internal Revenue Manual . The instructions upo n 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended . - 5 - which petitioner relies, however, were promulgated several year s after the OIC default . Thus, we reject petitioner's contentions and sustain respondent's determination . Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless . Decision will be entered fo r respondent .