TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Gregory L. Toler & Delana D. Toler
Docket Number: 14297-17L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/29/2018
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 GREGORY L. TOLER & DELANA D. TOLER, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, . ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 14297-17 L. ) ) Respondent ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, 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 Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at San Francisco, California containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, this case will be remanded to respondent's Appeals Office and an appropriate Order will be issued. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 29, 2018 SEMD MAR 3 0 2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert.Goeke March 9, 2018 Gregory L. Toler & Delaná D. Toler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket- No. 14297-17L THE COURT: The Court has.decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion.in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral. findings of fact and opinion. The oral.findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is rendered pursuant to Internal Revenue Code s.ection 7459(b) and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of 13 Practice and Procedure. . 14 15 .The present case is before the Court based upon our jurisdiction to review determinations made ÂÁÀ notices 16 of determination after hearings on proposed collection 17 action pursuant to section 6330. 18 Respondent's trial memorandum. contains a summary 19 of the circumstances of the review of Petitioners' tax 20 21 liabilities ¯in the proposed collection activity by the settlement.officer. We quote: "Settlement offiäer .22 Veronica A. Smith received Petitioners' case for 23 24 consideration. She verified that. (1) the liabilities in question.were properly .assessed against Petitioners; (2) 25 Petitioners failed to pay thóse liabilities after notice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 and demand; and (3) Respondent gave Petitioners proper notice of his intent to file a notice of Federal tax lien in order to collect the liabilities in question. Petitioners were given ample time to present information in support of the relief they sought. "Their telephonic hearing, originally scheduled for August 17th, 2016, was delayed at Petitioners' request, taking place on September 8th, 2016, at which time Settlement Officer Smith explained the various collection alternatives available to Petitioners, including installment agreements, offers and compromise, and currently not collectible status. "After initially setting a deadline for receipt 14 of Petitioners' documentation of August 8th, 2016, the 15 16 17 18 19 20 settlement officer agreed to several extensions requested by the taxpayers, ultimately receiving Petitioners' collection information statement for wage earners and self-employed individuals (Form 433-A) and supporting documentation on September 30th, 2016. "Settlement Officer Smith called Petitioners on 21 April 13th, 2017 to see if they would agree to a partial 22 payment installment agreement which would require 23 Petitioners to make monthly payments of $516. However, 24 Settlement Officer Smith had not first received approval 25 for the offer from her appeals team manager." 73)406-2250|operationseescrbersnet|www.escrbersnet 5 What subsequently transpired was that Petitioners accepted the offer of $516, but after some time had expired, 44m Settlement Officer Smith informed them that that offer had been void because it was not approved by her supervisor. She explained that based upon the information contained in the Form 433-A the Petitioners could make monthly payments of at least $2,377 a month. But then she proposed an installment agreement that would require a monthly payment in the amount of $1,330 a month. Petitioners did not accept this revised installment agreement amount, and the case subsequently was the subject of a notice of determination and a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 petition to this Court. At the time the petition was 15 filed, the Petitioners were residents of Oakland, 16 California. 17 18 The record of the trial of this case reviewing the settlement officer's determination included a 19 stipulation of facts and attached exhibits and the 20 testimony of Mr. Toler. While we believe the Petitioners 21 did have significant assets, and they also owned real 22 23 24 estate which might have been the basis to collect the tax liabilities which are the subject of the Federal tax lien, the odd circumstances which led the settlement officer to 25 make one offer to resolve the.case and then subsequently (973)406-2250|operationsgescrbers.net|www.esabersmet 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 increase that offer twofold and the confusion that must have resulted to the Petitioners as a result of that series of events cause us to find that the determination to issue the notice of determination in this case, given the circumstances that existed at the time the notice of determination was issued was an abuse of discretion simply because additional dialogue with the Petitioners or at least some time to allow the Petitioners to further understand why the Respondent deemed the original offer to 10 be inadequate would have been in the best interest of the 11 parties in this case. 12 Given that circumstance, but our sympathy to 13 Respondent's efforts to collect this liability given the 14 Petitioners' significant income and the assets owned by 15 16 17 the Petitioners, we believe the best course of action is to remand this case for further consideration by Appeals, and we would hope that a fresh review by Appeals would be 18 beneficial to the parties. In that regard, it may be of 19 20 some help to the resolution of this case if a new settlement officer was applied to the case, given the 21 difficulties Ms. Smith encountered in her last negotiation 22 with Petitioners. 23 We note that any hope of resolution on remand 24 will turn on whether the Petitioners are reasonable and 25 understand the Respondent's need to collect the tax } BEIEI (973)406-2250|operationseestrbersmet|www.escrbersmet liability in question. We also note that the tax liability appears to be somewhat modest relative to the assets owned by the Petitioners and the annual income amounts they receive. Therefore, some reasonable solution via an installment agreement or refinancing would appear to be possible in the present case. And the Court remands with the hope that the case will be resolved in the Appeals Division without further necessity of litigation. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 3:37 p.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 ) Em 973)406-2250|operatiomeestrbersmet|www.escribersnet