TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Jeffrey A. Wolf
Docket Number: 23980-13L
Judge: Gustafson
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/06/2016
Pages: 21

57 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JEFFREY A. WOLF, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 23980-13 L. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), and to give effect to the opinion of the Court as set forth in the transcript of the proceeding at Denver, Colorado, on September 21, 2016, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before the undersigned judge at Denver, Colorado, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) David Gustafson Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 6, 2016 SERVED Oct 06 2016 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bench Opinion by Judge David Gustafson September 21, 2016 Jeffrey A. Wolf v. Commissioner Docket No. 23980-13L The Court has decided to render in this case the following as its oral Findings of Fact and 7 Opinion, which shall not be relied on as precedent in 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any other case. This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This "collection due process" ("CDP") case is an appeal by petitioner Jeffrey A. Wolf pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 6330(d), asking this Court to review the determination by the Office of Appeals of the Internal Revenue Service to sustain notices of lien and proposed levy to collect Mr. Wolf's unpaid income tax and additions to tax and interest for the six years 2004 through 2008 and 2010. The Commissioner previously filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction insofar as the petition seeks review of the notices of lien, and we granted that motion by our order of June 19, 2015. At the commencement of trial, the Commissioner asserted that the tax liabilities for 2004 have been 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 satisfied, assured the Court that no further collection for that year will be undertaken, and 3 moved to dismiss that year on grounds of mootness; 4 Mr. Wolf objected on the grounds that 2004 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 is not moot because he challenges liability as to the additions to tax for that year. We will therefore deny the Commissioner's motion to dismiss and will resolve Mr. Wolf's liability challenge. Jose A. Baez represented Mr. Wolf at trial, and Melinda K. Fisher represented the Commissioner. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Wolf resided in Colorado at the time he filed his petition. (Stip. 1.) 14 Mr. Wolf's non-filing of returns 15 Mr. Wolf owns numerous properties, some of them 16 17 18 19 20 income-producing. Beginning with tax year 2004 and through 2010, Mr. Wolf failed to file Federal income tax returns, thereby failing to report and pay liabilities that totaled in the millions of dollars. Mr. Wolf's father died in March 2006. Mr. 21 Wolf contends, and the IRS concedes, that the 22 23 24 25 resulting emotional devastation impeded his ability to timely file his returns and pay his taxes for 2006 and 2007; but that sorrowful event does not explain the earlier and later years. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Some of Mr. Wolf's income was derived from New York State. He did not file New York State tax returns for 2004 through 2010; and in 2012 he was found guilty of State tax evasion. The Commissioner evoked testimony at trial about this conviction, apparently to explain the decisions and conduct of IRS collection personal before the CDP request and hearing; but since we review only the action of the 9 Office of Appeals in the CDP process, and since 10 Appeals' determination that we review here makes no 11 mention of the State tax issues, we need not discuss 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this criminal issue in more detail. Sometime in 2010 Mr. Wolf decided to file his delinquent Federal income tax returns. He hired accountant Bruce Mina, who approached the IRS to come clean on behalf of Mr. Wolf and to attempt to lay the groundwork for an installment plan for payment of the unpaid liabilities. Revenue Agent Ginger Wray advised him that the 2009 and 2010 returns would have to be filed, and that Mr. Wolf would need to disclose his financial information on Form 433, "Collection Information Statement." Preparation and filing of returns Mr. Mina prepared Mr. Wolf's returns for 2009 (not at issue here) and 2010, and Mr. Wolf filed 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 the 2009 return in August 2011 and the 2010 return in January 2012. Mr. Wolf and Mr. Mina also prepared a Form 433 and submitted it in December 2011. The Form 433 listed properties in which Mr. Wolf held interests (mostly minority interests) as to 6 which Mr. Wolf asserted that his equity values 7 8 exceeded $5 million. Mr. Wolf then hired attorney Jose A. Baez and executed a Form 2848, "Power of 9 Attorney," on March 21, 2012 (Ex. 4-J), so that 10 Mr. Baez would thereafter represent him in his 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 dealings with the IRS. Ms. Wray then asked Mr. Baez for Mr. Wolf's returns for 2004 through 2008. Mr. Mina prepared the returns, and Mr. Wolf filed the 2004 return in February 2012 and the returns for 2005 through 2008 in April 2012. Assessments of the tax For each of the years, the IRS thereafter assessed the tax shown on the returns as filed by 20 Mr. Wolf. (Ex. 11-J.) These assessments included 21 22 23 24 25 the one for 2008, which Mr. Wolf has contended was assessed in a different and incorrect amount; but a comparison of the 2008 return (Ex. 12-J) and the 2008 IRS transcript (Ex. 22-J) shows that the amounts are identical: The IRS assessed what Mr. Wolf 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 self-reported. For 2005, the IRS also thereafter assessed additional tax of $2,701 arising from correction of a math error on the return (plus corresponding addition to tax for late filing). 5 Dealings with collection personnel 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In a meeting with Mr. Baez after the returns were filed, Ms. Wray advised that, in order to qualify for an installment agreement, Mr. Wolf would need to keep current with his tax obligations, including estimated tax for 2011 and 2012. Ms. Wray and her supervisor then requested and were granted a tour of Mr. Wolf's house in June 2012, in order to see his standard of living. Mr. Wolf testified at trial that, during their visit at his home, they advised Mr. Wolf that in order to get an installment agreement, he would need to stay current with his tax obligations, keep in contact with IRS collection personnel, and sell four of his properties that he had proposed to sell and to transmit the proceeds to the IRS to apply to his liabilities. He testified at trial that Ms. Wray warned him that if he did not meet these terms (including sale of the properties), then the IRS would seize the properties. Thus, Mr. Wolf had been warned that failure to sell the properties would make 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 him ineligible for an installment agreement--i.e., that an installment agreement was inconsistent with ownership of unliquidated equity in assets. Ms. Wray repeated these conditions in a letter dated June 22, 2012 (Ex. 28-R, at 49-51), in 6 which she stated, "I am giving you 9 months to sell 7 8 9 these properties or I will need to seize them." (See also Ex. 28-R at 45.) However, only 2 months later, on August 23, 2012, the IRS issued a "Final 10 Notice/Notice of Intent to Levy ..." to collect his 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unpaid liabilities for 2004 to 2010, now totaling about $6.5 million. (Ex. 1-J.) This acceleration may have resulted from Mr. Wolf's having been sentenced for his New York State crime in Summer 2012 (see Ex. 28-R at 49 ("I need to know the result of the sentencing on July 25th")) and his subsequent payment of $1.3 million in restitution to New York State (Ex. 37-R). But Mr. Wolf was shocked by the notice of levy. He phoned Ms. Wray to ask for an explanation, but she gave little and noted to him that he could request a CDP hearing with IRS Appeals. CDP request and hearing On September 19, 2012, Mr. Wolf timely sent to the IRS a Form 12153, "Request for a Collection Due Process ... Hearing" (Ex. 2-J; Stip. 3). On the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 form he checked a box indicating that he wanted an Installment Agreement ("IA"), and he wrote, "I would like an installment plan including money down in payment as I sell assets." Mr. Wolf's case was assigned in IRS Appeals to Settlement Officer Linda Andrews, who obtained access to the collection history developed by IRS collection personnel, including their notes that described some of the contents of Mr. Wolf's Form 10 433. On February 6, 2013, Ms. Andrews sent Mr. 11 Wolf a letter (Ex. 6-J) scheduling a telephone 12 13 conference for March 18, 2013. By mistake, she sent a copy of the letter to the accountant and former POA 14 Mr. Mina and not to the current POA Mr. Baez. Mr. 15 Wolf contacted Mr. Baez and told him about the letter 16 17 and the scheduled conference. Mr. Baez contacted Ms. Andrews and told her to communicate with him and not 18 Mr. Mina. At Mr. Baez's request she postponed the 19 conference first to April 3, 2013, and then to 20 April 24, 2013. (Exs. 7-J, 8-J.) These 21 postponements cured any prejudicial effect that 22 might have resulted from the mistake in sending the 23 24 letter to Mr. Mina instead of Mr. Baez. In a phone conversation with Mr. Baez on 25 April 1, 2013, Ms. Andrews "explained [that] this tp 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 did a F433A for the RO [Revenue Officer]. He only needs to update the 433A with any new inform[a]tion. I explained this is second reschedule for the hearing, if tp does not show or submits no additional information we will issue a NOD [notice of determination] and decision letter based on what is on file. I also explained if tp has equity in assets, these have to be addressed prior to any IA being granted. POA understands." (Ex. 27-R at 2.) The April 24, 2013, conference took place as a face-to-face meeting among Ms. Andrews, Mr. Wolf, and 12 Mr. Baez. Mr. Baez did not provide an updated Form 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 433 at that meeting. At the meeting Mr. Baez made a challenge as to the tax liability for 2008 and 2009, stating that the assessment amounts did not correspond to the returns filed, and a challenge as to the $2,710 additional assessment for 2005, which, from the transcript coding, Ms. Andrews concluded arose from the correction of a math error on the return. Mr. Baez made a general challenge to the liability as to the "penalties" (i.e. the additions to tax), but his only specific contention was that the March 2006 death of Mr. Wolf's father constituted "reasonable cause" for this non-filing and non- payment (a contention that is apparently applicable 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to 2006 and 2007, see Exs. 13-J, 15-J) and which the Commissioner has accepted as to the failure-to-file and failure-to-pay additions for 2006 and 2007). In addition, Mr. Baez questioned the computations of the penalty and asked for transcripts in order to discuss the computations with Mr. Mina. Mr. Wolf proposed an installment agreement 8 with a down payment of 20% of the total liabilities 9 for 2004 through 2010 and $50,000 per month until the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 liabilities were satisfied. He never made this proposal in writing, but Appeals did not deny an IA on that basis. Rather, Ms. Andrews "did tell tp and POA if properties did not sale [sic], before we would do an IA the equity would have to be addressed, ie if needed RO seizure action." (Ex. 27-R at 3.) She set a deadline of May 8, 2013, for Mr. Baez to provide the Form 433 and any further information that 18 Mr. Baez wanted to submit with regard to penalties. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Under a letter of April 30, 2013 (Ex. 10-J), Mr. Baez sent Ms. Andrews information about four properties that Mr. Wolf owned and hoped to sell to pay his tax liabilities. For one, there was no price information; for one there was a contract with a sale price of $320,000; and for two others, there were listing agreements stating prices of $1,195,000 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 and $3,975,000. Thus, the prices given totaled $5,460,000. Under the same letter, Mr. Baez sent a copy of the December 2011 Form 433 (Ex. 14-J). (The Commissioner has not contended that the old Form 433 was inadequate.) The Form 433 listed, as before, the properties (other than the four mentioned above) in 7 which Mr. Wolf held interests (mostly minority 8 9 interests) and as to which Mr. Wolf asserted that his equity values exceeded $5 million. On May 7, 2013, 10 Mr. Baez phoned Ms. Andrews and "asked about 11 12 13 14 resolution, again I [Ms. Andrews] explained Appeals cannot set up an IA until equity in assets is addressed. This tp has real property as well as interest in various business. I told this POA that 15 until equity is addressed an IA cannot be set up. 16 Also, not sure whether or not we would hold a case in 17 18 19 20 Appeals pending liquidation of all the equity in property." (Ex. 27-R at 3.) By letter of June 12, 2013 (Ex. 12-J), Ms. Andrews brought up unfinished business from the 21 April 24, 2013, conference and stated: 22 23 24 25 When we held the hearing on April 24, 2013, you had a question about the tax assessed on your F1040 for 2008 ... 2009. You stated the amounts did not match. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Capital Reporting Company 13 Attached is a copy of your F1040 for 2008 as [sic] you can see the amount of tax you show due on the return is the same amount the IRS assessed. You previously did ask about penalty abatement. As of today, I have not received any information from you on this issue. If this is something you still want Appeals to consider, provide me a written request noting which tax periods, type of penalties and explanation of reasonable cause for abatement. Please note any request to abate penalties must be signed under penalties of perjury by the taxpayer. As far as a collection alternative you had asked about an Installment Agreement, ("IA"). You did send me information about interest you have in various businesses as well as equity you have in real property. Before the IRS will enter into an ("IA"), any equity in assets must be addressed in your case if you cannot sell the assets then the assigned Revenue Officer does have the right to make a seizure determination on the assets. Therefore, Appeals will not recommend an IA on your case at this time. If you do have issues with the liability on any of the tax returns on your case please provide 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 14 me with a specific issue you want Appeals to address. Please provide this information to me by June 26, 2013. After June 26, 2013, if I do not receive any additional information, I will issue a Notice of Determination ... on your case based on the information I have on record. It appears that this letter of June 12 is the first instance in which Ms. Andrews stated in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 writing to Mr. Wolf or Mr. Baez that "Before the IRS 10 will enter into an [IA], any equity in assets must be 11 addressed". 12 Notice of Determination 13 On September 9, 2013, IRS Appeals issued to 14 Mr. Wolf a "Notice of Determination" (Ex. 17-R) that 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sustained the proposed levy. Regarding the 2008 tax liability challenge, Appeals held: "A review of the records shows that the tax assessed on your F1040 for 2008 does match the return that you filed." Regarding the liability challenge as to additions to tax, Appeals held: "the taxpayer has reasonable cause to abate the late filing for" 2006 and 2007 (and the Commissioner has now conceded the late-payment addition for those years as well). Regarding the denial of an IA, "Appeals reviewed a list of assets you provided which shows over $5 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 million dollars equity in assets which include real 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 property and interest in several LLC's. The SO explained until assets are liquidated either by the TP or if needed compliance makes a seizure determination, an IA cannot be set up." On October 8, 2013, Mr. Wolf timely mailed his petition to this Court. This case was called from the Court's trial calendar on September 19, 2016, and was tried September 20, 2016. OPINION I. Collection Due Process principles If a taxpayer fails to pay any Federal income tax liability after demand, section 6331(a) authorizes the IRS to collect the tax by levy on the taxpayer's property. However, the IRS must first issue a final notice of intent to levy, and notify the taxpayer of the right to an administrative hearing before the Office of Appeals. Sec. 6320(a), 6330(a) and (b) (1). After receiving such a notice, the taxpayer may request an administrative hearing before IRS Appeals. Sec. 6320(a)(3) (B), (b) (1). At the CDP hearing, the appeals officer 24 must make a determination whether the proposed 25 collection action may proceed. The appeals officer 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 is required to take into consideration several things: First, the appeals officer must obtain verification that the requirements of any applicable law and administrative procedure have been met by IRS personnel (see sec. 6330(c) (3) (A)). Mr. Wolf raised no verification issue, either in his petition or in his pretrial memorandum. Second, the appeals officer 9 must consider any collection alternatives proposed by 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the taxpayer (see sec. 6330(c)(3) (B), citing sec. 6330(c)(2)). Mr. Wolf contends that the IRS erred in this regard in denying him an IA. And third, the appeals officer must determine "whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary" (see sec. 6330(c)(3)), an issue that Mr. Wolf urges in criticizing Appeals' denial of an IA, and which we need not discuss separately. In addition, pursuant to section 6330(c) (2) (B), a taxpayer in certain circumstances may challenge the underlying tax liability in a CDP hearing. Mr. Wolf attempts a challenge as to the 2008 tax liability, the math error portion of the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2005 liability, and all of the additions to tax. The Commissioner does not contend that Mr. Wolf was not entitled to challenge these liabilities (but contends that as to all but 2006 and 2007 he failed to do so, or failed to do so effectually). II. Burden of proof and standard and scope of review In considering Appeals' denial of a collection alternative (such as an IA), the Court reviews the administrative determination for an abuse of discretion. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Otherwise, Mr. Wolf, as petitioner, bears the burden of proof in this litigation. See Rule 142(a)(1). Mr. Wolf makes no contention that the burden has shifted for any reason, and we see no basis in the record for such a contention. III. Collection alternatives Mr. Wolf contends that IRS Appeals abused its discretion by failing to accept his proposal of a collection alternative (i.e., an IA). Appeals' reason for the denial was Mr. Wolf's admitted ownership of substantial, multi-million dollar equity in multiple properties. Appeals' denial was consistent with the warnings Mr. Wolf had been given since June 2012 that failure to sell the properties 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would make him ineligible for an IA--i.e., that an IA is inconsistent with ownership of unliquidated equity in assets. More important, Appeals' denial was consistent with the Internal Revenue Manual, which instructs that "Taxpayers do not qualify for installment agreements if balance due accounts can be fully or partially satisfied by liquidating assets." I.R.M. pt. 5.14.1.4(5)(2011). We cannot say that this rule as applied to this case is an abuse of discretion. Mr. Wolf's development of his substantial portfolio was improperly enhanced or facilitated by his non-payment of millions of dollars of Federal income tax liability over seven years. The IRS may well reckon that a taxpayer should not be permitted to default on his tax obligations, tie up in investments the money that should have paid his taxes, and then be entitled to forbearance in collection because the investments are not liquid. We sustain Appeals' determination to deny the IA. IV. Challenge to underlying liability Section 6330(c)(2) (B) provides circumstances in which a taxpayer may challenge the underlying tax liability in a CDP hearing, and the Commissioner does not deny that Mr. Wolf was entitled 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 19 1 2 to dispute his liabilities. However, apart from the liabilities that the Commissioner has conceded, Mr. 3 Wolf has not supported a reduction in any of the 4 5 6 liabilities: A. 2008 tax assessment Section 6201(a) (1) ("Taxes Shown on 7 Return") provides, "The Secretary shall assess all 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 taxes determined by the taxpayer ... as to which returns ... are made under this title." Mr. Wolf filed a 2008 return determining and reporting a tax liability. The Commissioner has shown that the IRS's assessment was in the amount Mr. Wolf reported. We see no error here. B. 2005 tax assessment from math error The IRS's transcript shows an additional assessment arising from the correction of a math error. Mr. Wolf has made no showing or argument to challenge this assessment; he has simply questioned it. In a liability challenge, he has the burden of production and the burden of proof; he has met neither. An argument not advanced by Mr. Wolf is the question of verification under section 6330(c) (3) (A), which in the CDP hearing is an obligation of IRS Appeals without regard to the taxpayer's raising it. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 20 1 2 3 See Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197, 202-203 (2008). Perhaps in the right case one could contend that Appeals' consultation of transcripts, 4 without more, constitutes a failure to obtain 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 adequate verification that the requirements of any applicable law and administrative procedure were met, for purposes of section 6330(c) (3) (A), in the case of an assessment arising from the correction of a math error. However, "the taxpayer must adequately raise the verification issue in his petition in order for this Court to consider it." Norman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-98, *8, n.2., citing Rule 331(b)(4). 13 Mr. Wolf did not do so, and we therefore do not 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 address this challenge to the math error assessment as a verification issue. C. Additions to tax In view of the death of Mr. Wolf's father in March 2006, the IRS has conceded the failure-to- file and failure-to-pay additions to tax for 2006 and 2007, on grounds of "reasonable cause." Without much specific argument, Mr. Wolf generally contends that he ought likewise to be excused from the addition for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654. However, section 6654 has no "reasonable cause" exception. Rather, its closest equivalent is the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 provision of sections 6654(e) (3) (A) that "No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any underpayment to the extent the Secretary determines that by reason of casualty, disaster, or other unusual circumstances the imposition of such addition to tax would be against equity and good conscience." It seems clear that this provision is intended to set a higher standard than "reasonable cause". The death of one's parent-- truly a great grief--does not fall within this language; it is an event that is sad but not "unusual". Cf. McLaine v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 228, 249 (2012) ("The evidence of undue hardship and alcoholism does not support a finding that imposition of the section 6654(a) addition to tax herein 'would be against equity and good conscience'--within the 17 meaning of section 6654(e) (3) (A)"). 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Wolf's broad assertion that all the other additions to tax for all the other years at issue should be excused on "reasonable cause" grounds fails. He does not explain how his father's death could be "reasonable cause" for non-filing and non- payment in years before that death, nor in years substantially after that death. We do not sustain his liability challenge. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company CONCLUSION 22 Mr. Wolf did not successfully challenge his liabilities (other than those the IRS conceded), and IRS Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it declined to enter into an IA with Mr. Wolf. This concludes the Court's oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:56 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com