t c summary opinion united_states tax_court jesus rodriguez and juanita rodriguez petitioners v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 1690-15s filed date jesus rodriguez pro_se susan kathy greene and yvette nunez for respondent summary opinion carluzzo chief special_trial_judge this case was heard pursuant to the provisions of sec_7463 of the internal_revenue_code in effect when the petition was filed pursuant to sec_7463 the decision to be entered is not 1unless otherwise indicated section references are to the internal revenue continued reviewable by any other court and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case in a notice_of_deficiency notice dated date respondent determined a dollar_figure deficiency in petitioners’ federal_income_tax and imposed a dollar_figure sec_6651 addition_to_tax and a dollar_figure sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty the issues for decision are whether petitioners are entitled to unreimbursed employee_business_expense deductions claimed on schedule a itemized_deductions are entitled to deductions claimed on schedules c profit or loss from business are entitled to deduct educator expenses related to mrs rodriguez’s employment realized and must recognize cancellation of indebtedness coi income are entitled to a moving_expense_deduction are entitled to an additional_child_tax_credit are liable for a sec_6651 addition_to_tax and are liable for a sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty continued code code of as amended in effect for the year in issue rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure all monetary amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar 2in the petition petitioners claim entitlement to a deduction for attorney’s fees not claimed on their federal_income_tax return according to petitioners the deduction relates to a personal bankruptcy filed and dismissed in continued background some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found at the time the petition was filed and at all times relevant petitioners lived in texas with their daughter who was older than as of the close of mr rodriguez petitioner holds a master’s degree in education psychology and counseling at all times relevant here he was employed as an educational diagnostician in the dallas independent school district disd as an educational diagnostician petitioner worked with children with special needs in the various schools within the disd he also consulted with teachers and school staff that interacted with his students as part of his employment with the disd petitioner routinely traveled to various schools within the disd during the workday and occasionally traveled to the disd headquarters he also traveled to meetings and conferences outside of the disd petitioner used his personal automobile in connection with employment-related travel during the disd’s compensation and benefits expense reimbursement policy reimbursement policy entitled petitioner to reimbursement for employee continued or they did not present any evidence to establish that they are entitled to the deduction and their claim is rejected without further comment business-related expenses including travel_expenses under the reimbursement policy petitioner was also entitled to a per_diem travel allowance for lodging and meals if certain conditions were met during and petitioner applied for and received reimbursements from the disd for employee-related expenses petitioner did not apply for reimbursements for employee-related travel or other expenses during according to two schedules c included with petitioners’ federal_income_tax return return one or both petitioners were involved in what they claim to be sole_proprietor type businesses through one petitioners claim to have provided consultant research and educational_services consultant business including private tutorials to school aged children and special education and life skills instruction to petitioners’ severely handicapped daughter through the other one identified on a schedule c as j and j’s delivery services delivery business petitioners claim to have provided delivery services that included transporting people to appointments and transporting their disabled daughter to her doctor’s appointments petitioners claim to have dealt mostly in cash with respect to the consultant and delivery businesses they kept no financial or business records of expenses clients or otherwise as best we can tell the consultant and delivery businesses operated largely to provide services to petitioners’ daughter at trial petitioners presented a mileage log for travel related to petitioner’s employment with the disd as well as two mileage logs for travel related to the delivery business none of the mileage logs were prepared contemporaneously with the events recorded the logs were created in anticipation of trial during certain years before the year in issue mrs rodriguez maintained a credit card with citibank south dakota n a citibank citibank’s records reflect that mrs rodriguez had an account balance of dollar_figure as of date and that the last payment citibank received was on date for dollar_figure from through citibank pursued collection on mrs rodriguez’s account and on date the account was placed in pending sale status on the basis of citibank’s identification criteria the account was not eligible for issuance of a form 1099-c cancellation of debt in or ultimately on date citibank in accordance with its internal policies issued to mrs rodriguez a form 1099-c reporting that it had discharged the dollar_figure debt she then owed on date mrs rodriguez initiated a bankruptcy proceeding that was dismissed on date the bankruptcy court did not grant mrs rodriguez a discharge petitioners’ return was filed on date on the return they reported wage income of dollar_figure taxable interest of dollar_figure losses on schedules c of dollar_figure a rental real_estate loss on schedule e supplemental income and loss of dollar_figure total income of dollar_figure and above-the-line deductions of dollar_figure for educator expenses and dollar_figure for moving_expenses resulting in adjusted_gross_income of dollar_figure the return shows no taxable_income and reports no income_tax_liability petitioners’ return includes a schedule a on which they claimed various deductions including as relevant here a dollar_figure before the application of the limitation prescribed in sec_67 miscellaneous expense deduction for unreimbursed employee business_expenses a form 2106-ez unreimbursed employee business_expenses included with petitioners’ return shows the detail of the deduction for unreimbursed employee business_expenses as follows vehicle expenses of dollar_figure parking fees and tolls of dollar_figure travel 3in claiming vehicle expenses of dollar_figure petitioners elected to use the applicable standard mileage rate the commissioner generally updates the continued expenses while away from home of dollar_figure other business_expenses of dollar_figure and meals and entertainment_expenses of dollar_figure after the application of the limitation prescribed by sec_274 the schedules c for the consultant and delivery businesses show the following income and deductions consultant business delivery business income gross_receipts expenses advertising car and truck contract labor depreciation legal and professional services office rent or lease of vehicles machinery and equipment rent or lease of other business property repairs and maintenance supplies taxes and licenses travel dollar_figure big_number dollar_figure -0- big_number -0- continued optional standard mileage rates annually see sec_1_274-5 income_tax regs the standard mileage rate of cents per mile for is set forth in revproc_2009_54 sec_2 2009_51_irb_930 meals and entertainment utilities other1 total net profit loss big_number big_number big_number big_number big_number big_number 1the deduction for other expenses for the consultant business is for bad business debt of dollar_figure and workshops conferences and related expenses of dollar_figure the deduction for other expenses for the delivery business is for bad business debt of dollar_figure petitioners also claimed an additional_child_tax_credit of dollar_figure on their return in the notice respondent increased petitioners’ income by the amount reported as coi on form 1099-c disallowed the moving_expense_deduction disallowed the deductions claimed on schedules c disallowed dollar_figure of the dollar_figure deduction claimed for educator expenses disallowed the miscellaneous expense deduction for unreimbursed employee business_expenses claimed on schedule a and disallowed the additional_child_tax_credit respondent further determined that petitioners were liable for the addition_to_tax under sec_6651 and for the accuracy-related_penalty under sec_6662 on various grounds other adjustments made in the notice are computational and need not be addressed discussion generally the commissioner’s determinations are presumed correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous rule a 290_us_111 as we have observed in countless opinions deductions and credits are a matter of legislative grace and the taxpayer bears the burden_of_proof to establish entitlement to any claimed deduction or credit 503_us_79 292_us_435 a taxpayer claiming a deduction on a federal_income_tax return must demonstrate that the deduction is provided by statute and must further substantiate that the expense to which the deduction relates has been paid_or_incurred sec_6001 65_tc_87 aff’d per curiam 540_f2d_821 5th cir 43_tc_824 sec_1_6001-1 income_tax regs taxpayers may deduct ordinary and necessary expenses paid in connection with operating a trade_or_business sec_162 122_tc_305 generally the performance of services as an employee 4petitioners do not claim and the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the provisions of sec_7491 are applicable here and we proceed as though they are not constitutes a trade_or_business 54_tc_374 to be ordinary the expense must be of a common or frequent occurrence in the type of business involved 308_us_488 to be necessary an expense must be appropriate and helpful to the taxpayer’s business welch v helvering u s pincite if as a condition_of_employment an employee is required to incur certain expenses then the employee is entitled to a deduction for those expenses unless the employee is entitled to reimbursement from his or her employer see 59_tc_696 spielbauer v commissioner tcmemo_1998_80 an employee_business_expense is not ordinary and necessary if the employee is entitled to reimbursement from his or her employer but fails to seek reimbursement see 24_tc_21 noz v commissioner tcmemo_2012_272 at on the other hand sec_262 generally disallows a deduction for personal living or family_expenses as a general_rule if a taxpayer provides sufficient evidence that the taxpayer has paid a trade_or_business expense contemplated by sec_162 but is unable to adequately substantiate the amount the court may estimate the amount and allow a deduction to that extent 39_f2d_540 2d cir however in order for the court to estimate the amount of an expense there must be some basis upon which an estimate may be made 85_tc_731 otherwise any allowance would amount to unguided largesse 245_f2d_559 5th cir deductions for expenses attributable to travel including meals_and_lodging while away from home entertainment gifts and the use of listed_property as defined in sec_280f and including passenger automobiles if otherwise allowable are subject_to strict rules of substantiation sec_274 see 50_tc_823 aff’d per curiam 412_f2d_201 2d cir sec_1_274-5t temporary income_tax regs fed reg date with respect to deductions for these types of expenses sec_274 requires that the taxpayer substantiate either by adequate_records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement the amount of the expense the time and place the expense was incurred the business_purpose of the expense and in the case of an entertainment or gift expense the business relationship to the taxpayer of each expense incurred for listed_property expenses the taxpayer must establish the amount of business use and the amount of total use for such property see sec_1_274-5t temporary income_tax regs fed reg date substantiation by adequate_records requires the taxpayer to maintain an account book a diary a log a statement of expense trip sheets or a similar record prepared contemporaneously with the expenditure and documentary_evidence eg receipts or bills of certain expenditures sec_1_274-5 income_tax regs sec_1_274-5t temporary income_tax regs fed reg date substantiation by other_sufficient_evidence requires the production of corroborative evidence in support of the taxpayer’s statement specifically detailing the required elements sec_1_274-5t temporary income_tax regs fed reg date with these fundamental principles of federal income_taxation in mind we consider petitioners’ entitlement to the various deductions and the additional_child_tax_credit here in dispute i schedule c business_expenses and schedule a unreimbursed employee business_expenses petitioners claim expenses totaling dollar_figure for their consultant business_expenses totaling dollar_figure for their delivery business and dollar_figure for unreimbursed employee business_expenses related to petitioner’s employment with the disd according to respondent petitioners have failed to establish that the expenses were paid or if paid the expenses were business related in support of the above-referenced deductions petitioners submitted a collection of handwritten and printed invoices and receipts a mileage log for travel related to petitioner’s employment with the disd as well as two mileage logs for travel related to the delivery business and numerous other documents of little if any relevance many of which are duplicated many times over in the record taking into account the documents submitted by petitioners and petitioner’s testimony we are not persuaded that they are entitled to any of the deductions here in dispute most of the deductions were not substantiated by written evidence and the written evidence that was provided is hardly credible furthermore petitioners have not given us a basis upon which we can reasonably estimate the amount of the expenses to which the deductions relate see cohan v commissioner f 2d pincite vanicek v commissioner t c pincite documents submitted to substantiate the deductions subject_to sec_274 are deficient in one respect or another for example none of the mileage logs contain any specific entries regarding the business purposes of petitioner’s travel see fleming v commissioner tcmemo_2010_60 hotel receipts submitted by petitioners relate to individuals other than petitioners petitioner’s explanation that he used pseudonyms at the hotels was unpersuasive otherwise it would seem that amounts paid for hotel expenses could easily be substantiated by canceled checks credit card statements or bank statements no such evidence has been submitted with respect to the unreimbursed employee business_expenses claimed on the schedule a it appears that the disd reimbursement policy entitled petitioner to reimbursement for any related expense including travel he may have incurred on behalf of the disd petitioner did not seek reimbursement from the disd for those expenses and therefore petitioners are not entitled to a deduction for them see podems v commissioner t c pincite noz v commissioner tcmemo_2012_272 at ii educator expenses petitioners claimed a dollar_figure deduction for educator expenses related to mrs rodriguez’s employment effective for tax years beginning after date elementary and secondary school teachers may deduct the cost of certain school supplies up to dollar_figure from their gross_income sec_62 d sec_62 defines an eligible_educator as follows a in general --for purposes of subsection a d the term eligible_educator means with respect to any taxable_year an individual who is a kindergarten through grade teacher instructor counselor principal or aide in a school for at least hours during a school year mrs rodriguez did not testify at the trial otherwise petitioners have failed to show that she fits within the definition of an eligible_educator accordingly petitioners are not entitled to a dollar_figure deduction for educator expenses related to mrs rodriguez iii moving_expenses sec_217 allows as a deduction moving_expenses paid_or_incurred during the taxable_year in connection with the commencement of work by the taxpayer as an employee or as a self-employed_individual at a new principal_place_of_work sec_217 generally defines the term moving_expenses as the reasonable expenses of moving household goods and personal effects from the former residence to the new residence and related travel petitioners resided at the same address during and petitioner was employed at the same principal_place_of_work the disd during those years neither petitioner moved in connection with the commencement of work by the taxpayer as an employee or as a self-employed_individual at a new principal_place_of_work accordingly petitioners are not entitled to a deduction for moving_expenses iv additional_child_tax_credit petitioners claimed entitlement to an additional_child_tax_credit for their daughter who was over years of age at the time sec_24 allows a taxpayer a dollar_figure credit against income_tax with respect to each qualifying_child for purposes of sec_24 a qualifying_child is a qualifying_child of the taxpayer as defined in sec_152 who has not yet reached the age of sec_24 because petitioners’ daughter was over years of age during the year in issue petitioners are not entitled to the additional_child_tax_credit claimed v coi income where an information_return such as form 1099-c serves as the basis for the determination_of_a_deficiency the burden of production may shift to the commissioner see sec_6201 del monico v commissioner tcmemo_2004_92 slip op pincite if a taxpayer in a court_proceeding asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item_of_income reported on an information_return and has fully cooperated then the commissioner must produce reasonable and probative information concerning the deficiency in addition to the information_return sec_6201 petitioners have not raised a reasonable dispute with respect to the accuracy of the information_return although petitioners contend that the coi income at issue in this case was discharged in mrs rodriguez’s bankruptcy the record shows that her bankruptcy case was dismissed without granting a discharge petitioners further contend that the amount of income reported on the form 1099-c is incorrect but they have provided no evidence to support that contention moreover it is clear that petitioners have failed to cooperate with respondent and therefore the court concludes that respondent does not have the burden of production under sec_6201 in general the term income as used in the code means income from any source including income from the discharge_of_indebtedness sec_61 348_us_426 as noted citibank issued to mrs rodriguez a form 1099-c reporting that it had discharged the dollar_figure debt that she owed the moment it becomes clear that a debt will never be repaid that debt must be viewed as having been discharged 88_tc_435 the determination of whether discharge_of_indebtedness has occurred is fact specific and often turns on the subjective intent of the creditor as manifested by an objectively identifiable_event id the issuance of a form 1099-c is an identifiable_event but it is not dispositive of an intent to cancel indebtedness owens v commissioner tcmemo_2002_253 aff’d in part rev’d in part and remanded 67_fedappx_253 5th cir any identifiable_event that fixes the loss with certainty may be taken into consideration cozzi v commissioner t c pincite citing 274_us_398 cf sec_1_6050p-1 iv income_tax regs providing an exclusive list of eight identifiable_event s under which debt is discharged for information reporting purposes according to sec_1_6050p-1 income_tax regs an identifiable_event occurs when there is a discharge_of_indebtedness pursuant to a decision by the creditor or the application of a defined policy of the creditor to discontinue collection activity and discharge debt according to sec_1_6050p-1 and iv income_tax regs there is a rebuttable_presumption that an identifiable_event has occurred during a calendar_year if a creditor has not received a payment on an indebtedness at any time during a 36-month testing_period ending at the close of the year according to petitioners the debt should not have been deemed canceled in with the filing of form 1099-c instead relying on sec_1_6050p-1 and iv income_tax regs they assert that the coi actually occurred in a year before after they stopped making payments on the debt for more than months their argument however is undermined at least in part by their failure to report the coi income on any of their federal_income_tax returns filed before respondent if only by implication contends that the identifiable_event that triggered the coi occurred in when citibank in accordance with its internal policies decided to cancel the debt and issue form 1099-c see sec_1_6050p-1 income_tax regs according to citibank’s identification criteria the account was not eligible for issuance of a form 1099-c in or on date citibank in accordance with its internal policies issued to mrs rodriguez a form 1099-c reporting that it had discharged debt of dollar_figure under the circumstances we find that the issuance of the form 1099-c constitutes the identifiable_event contemplated in sec_1_6050p-1 income_tax regs that event occurred in and that is the year that petitioners realized and must recognize the coi income 5petitioners alternatively argue that the coi occurred when the statute_of_limitations on collection in texas expired sometime before sec_1_6050p-1 income_tax regs recognizes this situation as an identifiable_event that cancels indebtedness generates coi income and requires continued lastly petitioners point out that they did not receive the form 1099-c the nonreceipt of a form 1099-c however does not cause coi income to be excludable from income see rinehart v commissioner tcmemo_2002_71 slip op pincite continued the issuance of a form 1099-c enumerated as the third of eight identifiable_event s giving rise to coi income subdivision i c provides c a cancellation or extinguishment of an indebtedness upon the expiration of the statute_of_limitations for collection of an indebtedness subject_to the limitations described in paragraph b ii of this section or upon the expiration of a statutory period for filing a claim or commencing a deficiency judgment proceeding as noted sec_1_6050p-1 income_tax regs is limited by sec_1_6050p-1 income_tax regs which states that an identifiable_event occurs under paragraph b i c of this section only if and at such time as a debtor’s affirmative statute_of_limitations defense is upheld in a final judgment or decision of a judicial proceeding because petitioners have not provided any evidence that they have raised an affirmative statute_of_limitations defense that was upheld in a final judgment or decision of a judicial proceeding they have failed to establish that a corresponding identifiable_event occurred pursuant to sec_1_6050p-1 income_tax regs vi sec_6651 addition_to_tax petitioner’s return was due to be filed on or before date but it was not filed until date see sec_6072 sec_7503 consequently respondent imposed a sec_6651 addition_to_tax sec_6651 authorizes the imposition of an addition_to_tax for failure_to_file a timely return unless the taxpayer proves that such failure is due to reasonable_cause and is not due to willful neglect see also 469_us_241 harris v commissioner tcmemo_1998_332 sec_6651 imposes an addition_to_tax of of the tax required to be shown on the return for each month or fraction thereof for which there is a failure_to_file not to exceed in the aggregate respondent’s records demonstrate that petitioners’ return was not timely filed and petitioners do not dispute the point respondent’s sec_7491 burden of production has been met with respect to the imposition of the sec_6651 addition_to_tax and because petitioners have failed to demonstrate that their failure_to_file timely their return was due to reasonable_cause respondent’s imposition of a sec_6651 addition_to_tax is sustained 6the due_date with extensions for filing their return was date pursuant to the automatic_extension petitioners filed vii sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty lastly we consider whether petitioners are liable for a sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty for the year in issue respondent bears the burden of production with respect to the imposition of a sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty see sec_7491 the petition answer and pretrial memoranda all reference sec_6662 and show that the imposition of the penalty has not been conceded by either party either expressly or implicitly that being so we note that as part of his burden of production respondent was obligated to show that the provisions of sec_6751 have been satisfied see graev v commissioner 149_tc_485 supplementing and overruling in part 147_tc_460 because there is no evidence in the record that shows respondent’s compliance with sec_6751 petitioners are not liable for the sec_6662 accuracy-related_penalty to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered under rule sec_6751 provides no penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved in writing by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the secretary may designate


internal_revenue_service number release date index number ----------------- ------------ --------------------------- ---------------------------- department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact --------------------------- id no ---------------- ----------------- telephone number --------------------- refer reply to cc psi b04 plr-133434-09 date january -------------------------- decedent -------------- date daughter ----------------- ---------------- son attorney -------------------- dear ------------ this letter responds to your authorized representative's letter dated date and subsequent correspondence submitted on behalf of decedent's_estate requesting an extension of time under sec_301_9100-3 of the procedure and administration regulations to make an election under sec_2057 of the internal_revenue_code decedent died testate on date survived by daughter and son included in decedent's gross_estate are interests in residential multi-unit apartment buildings that decedent had operated prior to decedent’s death the executrix of decedent's_estate retained decedent’s personal attorney to prepare the federal estate_tax_return attorney was unaware of the provisions of sec_2057 relating to an election to deduct certain qualified family-owned business interests accordingly no election was made decedent's_estate tax_return was examined and additional estate_tax was paid at the close of the examination the executrix retained additional counsel to assist in the completion of the administration of the estate it was at that time that the failure to make the election was first discovered the executrix now requests an extension of time to make the election sec_2001 imposes a tax on the transfer of the taxable_estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident_of_the_united_states sec_2057 provides that for purposes of the tax imposed by sec_2001 the value of the taxable_estate shall be determined by deducting from the value of the gross_estate plr-133434-09 the adjusted_value of the qualified family-owned business interests of the decedent sec_2057 provides that the deduction shall not exceed dollar_figure sec_2057 provides generally that sec_2057 shall apply to an estate if a the decedent was a citizen or resident_of_the_united_states b the executor elects the application of this section and files the agreement referred to in sec_2057 c the sum of the adjusted_value of the qualified family-owned business interests plus the amount of the gifts of such interests exceed sec_50 percent of the adjusted_gross_estate and d during the 8-year period ending on the date of the decedent's death there have been periods aggregating years or more during which such interests were owned by the decedent or a member of the decedent's family and there was material_participation within the meaning of sec_2032a by the decedent or a member of the decedent's family in the operation of the business to which such interests relate sec_2057 provides that the qualified family-owned business interests described in this paragraph are the interests which are included in determining the value of the gross_estate and are acquired by any qualified_heir from or passed to any qualified_heir from the decedent within the meaning of sec_2032a sec_2057 provides generally that the term qualified_family-owned_business_interest means an interest as a proprietor in a trade_or_business carried on as a proprietorship or an interest in an entity carrying_on_a_trade_or_business if at least percent of such entity is owned directly or indirectly by the decedent and members of the decedent's family at least percent of such entity is so owned by members of families and at least percent of such entity is so owned by the decedent and members of the decedent's family or at least percent of such entity is so owned by members of families and at least percent of such entity is so owned by the decedent and members of the decedent's family sec_2057 provides that for purposes of sec_2057 rules similar to the rules under sec_2032a and relating to election agreement shall apply sec_2057 provides that the provisions of sec_2057 shall not apply to estates of decedents dying after date sec_2032a provides that the election under sec_2032a shall be made on the return of tax imposed by sec_2001 the election shall be made in such manner as the secretary shall by regulations prescribe such an election once made shall be irrevocable sec_2032a provides that the secretary shall prescribe procedures which provide that in any case in which the executor makes an election under sec_2032a and submits the agreement referred to in sec_2032a within the time prescribed therefor the executor will have a reasonable period of time not exceeding days after notification of such failure to provide such information plr-133434-09 sec_301_9100-3 provides in part that requests for relief subject_to sec_301_9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer provides the evidence to establish to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and the grant of relief will not prejudice the interests of the government sec_301_9100-3 provides in part except as provided in sec_301_9100-3 through iii that a taxpayer is deemed to have acted reasonably and in good_faith if the taxpayer reasonably relied on a qualified_tax professional including a tax professional employed by the taxpayer and the tax professional failed to make or advise the taxpayer to make the election based on the facts submitted and the representations made we conclude that the requirements of sec_301_9100-3 have been satisfied accordingly an extension of time of days from the date of this letter is granted in which to make an election under sec_2057 the election should be made on a supplemental form_706 and filed with the internal_revenue_service center cincinnati ohio a copy of this letter should be attached to the supplemental form_706 a copy is enclosed for that purpose except as expressly provided herein no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in this letter specifically we express or imply no opinion on whether the estate qualifies for the deduction under sec_2057 or whether a claim_for_refund may be timely filed this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent in accordance with the power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative the rulings contained in this letter are based upon information and representations submitted by the taxpayer and accompanied by a penalty of perjury statement executed plr-133434-09 by an appropriate party while this office has not verified any of the material submitted in support of the request for rulings it is subject_to verification on examination sincerely __________________ curt g wilson associate chief_counsel passthroughs special industries enclosures copy for sec_6110 purposes copy of this letter cc


department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c feb t ax exempt and government entities division uniform issue list legend taxpayer a irab financial_institution c partnership d entity e administrator f account g amount dear this letter is in response to your request for a ruling dated date as supplemented by correspondence dated date and date submitted on your behalf by your authorized representative in which you request a waiver of the 50-day rollover requirement contained in sec_408 of the internal_revenue_code the code the following facts and representations have been submitted under penalty of perjury in support of the ruling requested taxpayer a represents that he received a distribution from ira b totaling amount taxpayer a asserts that his failure to accomplish a rollover of amount within the 60-day period prescribed by sec_408 of the code was due to erroneous and incomplete advice from a financial_institution taxpayer a further represents that amount has not been used for any other purpose taxpayer a states that he owned ira b with financial_institution c in taxpayer a sought to invest part of ira b with partnership d a private limited_partnership taxpayer a is the managing member of entity e which is the general_partner of partnership d partnership d is not a qualified ira custodian taxpayer a represents that on date he contacted financial_institution c via telephone about investing ira b in partnership d as an investment made through a qualified ira account to preserve the tax-deferred status of ira b funds taxpayer a represents that financial_institution c advised him that an investment in partnership d could only be made by distributing funds out of ira b taxpayer a represents that he was unaware that partnership d was required to be a qualified ira custodian and that financial_institution c did not raise the issue of whether partnership d was qualified as an ira custodian taxpayer a also represents that prior to the distribution he consulted with administrator f a third party fund administrator for partnership d regarding the investment taxpayer a represents that an administrator f representative advised him that partnership d could accept ira funds in exchange for a limited_partnership_interest in partnership d taxpayer a represents that based on advice of financial_institution c and administrator f he transferred amount to account g at partnership d under the name taxpayer aira on september administrator f provided taxpayer a with a subscription confirmation in the name of taxpayer a ira taxpayer a represents that administrator f did not question whether the transaction was being properly handled in ordered to preserve tax-deferred status taxpayer a represents that he did not learn that partnership d was not a qualified ira custodian until date after the expiration of the 60-day period when an accountant for partnership d requested information regarding the custodian for account g taxpayer a represents that he received a form 1099-r reporting amount as a distribution based on the foregoing facts and representations you request a ruling that the internal_revenue_service the service waive the 60-day rollover requirement contained in sec_408 of the code with respect to the distribution of amount from ira b sec_408 of the code requires that the trustee of an ira be a bank as defined in sec_408 of the code or such other person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the secretary that the manner in which such other person will administer the ira will be consistent with the requirements of code sec_408 one of the requirements is that an applicant must assure the uninterrupted performance of its fiduciary duties notwithstanding the death or change_of its owners the ongoing business concept this precludes an individual from being a trustee or custodian sec_408 of the code provides that except as otherwise provided in sec_408 any amount_paid or distributed out of an ira shall be included in gross_income by the payee or distributee as the case may be in the manner provided under sec_72 of the code sec_408 of the code defines and provides the rules applicable to ira_rollovers sec_408 of the code provides that sec_408 of the code does not apply to any amount_paid or distributed out of an ira to the individual for whose benefit the ira is maintained if i ii the entire amount received including money and any other_property is paid into an ira for the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day after the day on which the individual receives the payment or distribution or the entire amount received including money and any other_property is paid into an eligible_retirement_plan other than an ira for the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day after the date on which the payment or distribution is received except that the maximum amount which may be paid into such plan may not exceed the portion of the amount received which is includible in gross_income determined without regard to sec_408 sec_408 of the code provides that sec_408 does not apply to any amount described in sec_408 received by an individual from an ira if at any time during the 1-year period ending on the day of such receipt such individual received any other amount described in sec_408 from an ira which was not includible in gross_income because of the application of sec_408 sec_408 d of the code provides a similar 60-day rollover period for partial rollovers sec_408 e of the code provides that the rollover provisions of sec_408 d do not apply to any amount required to be distributed under sec_408 a sec_408 d i of the code provides that the secretary may waive the day requirement under sec_408 and sec_408 of the code where the failure to waive such requirement would be against equity or good conscience including casualty disaster or other events beyond the reasonable control of the individual subject_to such requirement only distributions that occurred after date are eligible for the waiver under sec_408 of the code revproc_2003_16 2003_4_irb_359 january provides that in determining whether to grant a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement pursuant to sec_408 d of the code the service will consider all relevant facts and circumstances including errors committed by a financial_institution inability to complete a rollover due to death disability hospitalization incarceration restrictions imposed by a foreign_country or postal error the use of the amount distributed for example in the case of payment by check whether the check was cashed and the time elapsed since the distribution occurred in this case taxpayer a has not demonstrated that his inability to complete a timely rollover of amount was caused by any of the factors cited in revproc_2003_16 taxpayer a asserts that financial_institution c's and administrator f's failure to advise him that he must roll over ira b to a qualified ira custodian rises to the level of financial_institution error however the code imposes no obligation on financial institutions to ensure that a taxpayer properly' rolls over distributions to another entity financial_institution c had no duty to ensure that partnership d was an eligible ira custodian prior to its distribution of amount to taxpayer a and taxpayer a has not provided any evidence that financial_institution c acted in error the information presented indicates that the ability to roll over amount into an eligible ira within the 60-day rollover period was at all times within the reasonable control of taxpayer a therefore pursuant to sec_408 of the code the service declines to waive the 60-day rollover requirement with respect to the distribution to taxpayer a of amount no opinion is expressed as to the tax treatment of the transaction described herein under the provisions of any other section of either the code or regulations which may be applicable thereto this letter is directed only to the taxpayer who requested it sec_6110 of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative in accordance with a power_of_attorney form on file with this office if you have any questions please contact phone at correspondence to se t ep ra t1 or fax at by please address all sincerely yours carlton a watkins manager employee_plans technical group enclosures deleted copy of ruling letter notice of intention to disclose cc


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury washington dc person to contact telephone number refer reply to plr-125401-01 cc psi date date number release date index number legend company area business estate a b c trust trust trust trust dear this letter responds to a letter dated date and subsequent correspondence submitted on behalf of company requesting a ruling under sec_1362 plr-125401-01 of the internal_revenue_code according to the information submitted company was incorporated under the laws of the area on a and engages in the business of business_company filed an election under sec_1362 to be treated as an s_corporation effective as of a at the time of its incorporation company had one shareholder the estate on b the estate transferred all of its shares of company stock in equal shares to trust trust trust and trust trusts company represents that at all times after the transfer the trusts qualified as qssts as defined by sec_1361 except that the beneficiaries of the trusts failed to make qsst elections under sec_1361 the beneficiaries were not informed by the attorney supervising the transfer of company stock to the trusts of the need to make qsst elections as a consequence of the failure to make the qsst elections company’s s_corporation_election terminated on b the date of the transfer of company stock to the trusts in c the trustee of the trusts retained the services of a law firm to help administer the trusts while providing those services the law firm discovered the failure of the qsst beneficiaries to make qsst elections for the trusts to remedy the failure the law firm drafted documents for the beneficiaries of the trusts to apply for automatic relief for late qsst elections under revproc_98_55 1998_2_cb_643 however through inadvertence the documents were never circulated for signature by the beneficiaries but were instead misfiled in the firm’s office the law firm recently discovered that the documents necessary for automatic relief were not filed and immediately submitted a ruling_request for inadvertent termination relief on behalf of company company represents that the termination of its s_corporation_election was inadvertent and unintended company further represents that at all times subsequent to b company and its shareholders have treated company as an s_corporation and the trusts as qssts in addition company and its shareholders agree to make such adjustments consistent with the treatment of the corporation as an s_corporation as may be required by the service sec_1362 provides that except as provided in sec_1362 a small_business_corporation may elect in accordance with the provisions of sec_1362 to be an s_corporation sec_1361 provides that the term s_corporation means with respect to any taxable_year a small_business_corporation for which an election under sec_1362 is in effect for such year sec_1361 provides that the term small_business_corporation means a domestic_corporation which is not an ineligible_corporation and which does not have as a shareholder a person other than an estate a_trust described in sec_1361 or an plr-125401-01 organization described in sec_1361 who is not an individual sec_1361 provides that for the purposes of sec_1361 a_trust all of which is treated under subpart e of part i of subchapter_j of chapter as owned by an individual who is a citizen or resident_of_the_united_states may be a shareholder of an s_corporation sec_1361 provides that in the case of a qsst with respect to which a beneficiary makes an election under sec_1361 a the trust is treated as a_trust described in sec_1361 and b for purposes of sec_678 the beneficiary of the trust shall treated as the owner of that portion of the trust that consists of stock in an s_corporation with respect to which the election under sec_1361 is made sec_1361 provides that a beneficiary of a qsst or the beneficiary's legal_representative may elect to have sec_1361 apply sec_1361 provides that an election under sec_1361 shall be effective up to days and two months before the date of the election sec_1_1361-1 of the income_tax regulations provides that the current income_beneficiary of the trust must make the election under sec_1361 by signing and filing with the service_center with which the corporation files its income_tax return the applicable form or a statement including the information listed in sec_1_1361-1 sec_1362 provides that an election under sec_1362 terminates whenever the corporation ceases to be a small_business_corporation sec_1362 provides that if an election under sec_1362 by any corporation was terminated under sec_1362 or the secretary determines that the circumstances resulting in termination were inadvertent no later than a reasonable period of time after discovery of the circumstances resulting in the termination steps were taken so that the corporation is a small_business_corporation and the corporation and each person who was a shareholder of the corporation at any time during the period specified pursuant to sec_1362 agrees to make such adjustments consistent with the treatment of the corporation as an s_corporation as may be required by the secretary with respect to such period then notwithstanding the circumstances resulting in the termination the corporation shall be treated as an s_corporation during the period specified by the secretary based solely on the facts submitted and the representations made we conclude that company's s_corporation_election was terminated on b when shares of company's stock were first transferred to ineligible shareholders we further conclude that this termination was inadvertent within the meaning of sec_1362 thus under the provisions of sec_1362 company will be treated as an s_corporation from b and thereafter provided that the beneficiaries of the trusts file qsst elections effective within days following the date of this letter with the appropriate service_center and plr-125401-01 provided that company’s s_corporation_election is valid and is not otherwise terminated under sec_1362 a copy of this letter should be attached to the qsst elections during the termination period and thereafter the trusts will be treated as if they were qssts described in sec_1361 and the respective beneficiaries of the trusts will be treated for purposes of sec_678 as the owners of that portion of the respective trusts that consists of company stock accordingly the shareholders of company must include their pro_rata share of the separately and nonseparately computed items of company under sec_1366 make any adjustments to stock basis under sec_1367 and take into account any distributions made by company to shareholders under sec_1368 if company the trusts or any of company's shareholders fail to treat company as described above this ruling will be null and void except for the specific ruling above we express or imply no opinion concerning the federal tax consequences of the facts of this case under any other provision of the code specifically we express or imply no opinion regarding whether company is otherwise qualified to be an s_corporation or whether the trusts are valid qssts this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it under sec_6110 it may not be used or cited as precedent sincerely yours s christine ellison chief branch office of the associate chief_counsel passthroughs and special industries enclosures copy of this letter copy for sec_6110 purposes


department of the treasury internal_revenue_service washington d c tax exempt and government entities uniform issue list tcp rb ue mar legend individual a insurance_company b plan x employer p amount d date m dear - this letter is in response to your etter of date requesting that we waive the 60-day rollover requirement under sec_402 of the internal_revenue_code with respect to your distribution from your employer's employer p sec_401 plan the following facts and representation have been submitted under penalties of perjury to support the ruling_request individual a had participated in employer p' sec_401 arrangement plan x with insurance_company b individual a terminated employment with employer p individual a took a total_distribution of the balance_to_the_credit under the plan of amount d on date m after attaining age and after separating from service individual a had intended to roll over amount d into an ira with a different type of investment than plan x page individual a’s husband he died in early as a result of the effects of the husband's illness the extensive treatments for such and the extensive stress undergone by individual a individual a did not redeposit amount d into an ra within days of date m individual a requests a ruling that the service waive the 60-day rollover requirement because the failure to waive such requirement would be against equity or good conscience under the provisions of sec_402 of the code sec_402 of the code provides that except as otherwise provided in this section any amount distributed to any distributee by an employees’ trust described in sec_401 which is exempt from tax under sec_501 shall be taxable to the distribute in the taxable_year of the distributee in which distributed sec_72 relating to annuities sec_402 of the code concerning rules applicable to rollovers from exempt trusts provides in part that if any portion of the balance_to_the_credit of an employee is paid to the employee in an eligible_rollover_distribution and the distributee transfers any portion of the property received in such distribution to an eligible_retirement_plan then such distribution to the extent so transferred shall not be includible in gross_income for the taxable_year in which paid sec_402 of the code provides that a qualified_trust means an employees’ trust described in sec_401 which is exempt from tax under sec_501 a sec_402 of the cade provides in part that an eligible_retirement_plan includes an individual_retirement_account described in sec_408 sec_402 of the code provides that the transfer must be made within days of receipt in general sec_402 provides that subparagraph b of paragraph shall not apply to any transfer of a distribution made after the day following the day on which the distributee received the property distributed subparagraph b provides that the secretary may waive the 60-day requirement under subparagraph a where the failure to waive such requirement would be against equity or good conscience including casualty disaster or other events beyond the reasonable control of the individual subject_to such requirement only eligible rollover distributions that occurred after date are eligible for the waiver under sec_402 of the code page revproc_2003_16 r b provides that in determining whether to grant a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement pursuant to sec_402 or sec_408 the service will consider all relevant facts and circumstances including errors committed by a financial_institution inability to complete a rollover due to death disability hospitalization incarceration restrictions imposed by a foreign_country or postal error the use of the amount distributed for example in the case of payment by check whether the check was cashed and the time elapsed since the distribution occurred individual a received an eligible distribution from a 401_k_plan information presented demonstrates extraordinary circumstances caused by the stress individual a experienced during her husband's terminal illness and indicates that the individual a could not reasonably satisfy the requirement that amount d be deposited in an ira within days of the distribution from plan x the failure to deposit amount d into an ira within the 60-day period was beyond the reasonable control of individual a and the failure to waive the 60-day requirement would be against equity or good conscience therefore pursuant to sec_402 of the code the service hereby waives the 60-day rollover requirement with respect to amount d individual a is granted a period of days from the date_of_issuance of this ruling letter to contribute an amount up to amount d in cash to an ira provided all other requirements of sec_402 of the code are otherwise satisfied except the 60-day requirement if these conditions are satisfied amount d sec_402 of the code for the taxable_year will be considered a rollover constitution with the meaning of no opinion is expressed as to the tax treatment of the transaction described herein under the provisions of any other section of either the code or regulations which may be applicable thereto this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer that requested it sec_61 k of the code provides that it may not be used or cited by others as precedent if you have any questions please contact sincerely yours js donyile ketter ih donzel littlejohn manager employee_plans technical group


internal_revenue_service p o box cincinnati oh number release date date date legend x foundation fellowships universities department of the treasury employer_identification_number contact person - id number contact telephone number uil dear we have considered your request for advance approval of your grant-making program under sec_4945 of the internal_revenue_code dated date our records indicate that x was recognized as exempt from federal_income_tax under sec_501 of the code and that it is classified as a private_foundation as defined in sec_509 ‘your letter indicates that x will operate grant-making program to make fellowship grants to individuals for study at educational institutions that normally maintain a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regular organized body of students in attendance at the place where educational activities are carried on the fellowship program is intended to enhance the educational opportunities for individuals in z who will research some aspect of the natural sciences or natural history in the region of southern x is best suited for g since y will fund a type of project to facilitate the integral element of the advanced degree programs in natural sciences of z the eligible group will consist of all individuals who attend z who would like to conduct research on natural sciences or natural history it is expected that x will limit the fellowship grants for study research on natural sciences or natural history the applicant from z must have a faculty sponsor from z a faculty committee will be established at each of the participating colleges committee made up of instructors from appropriate areas of interest will be the liaison between x and z the faculty committee will be responsible for advertisement application review award selection and notification and disbursement of the fellowship_grant to the recipient the guidelines the faculty committee will follaw are set forth by the x the faculty committee must also comply with the guidelines set forth by z z will use the grant process guidelines from x when choosing the candidates for to be submitted to x interested individuals who wish to be considered for a grant will need to submit an application to the appropriate faculty committee at z the application must include a written proposal describing field work books travel research equipment research expenses nature and scope of project budget and support letter from a faculty sponsor each faculty committee will then select a maximum of three finalists from the applicants which will be forwarded to the selection committee of x the sponsor must sign off on the applicant’s project the faculty sponsor will be required to assist in the supervision of the project should the applicant receive the fellowship selection criteria will include interest of the natural science or natural history project potential importance of the project and relevance to the financial need of the applicant x will establish a fellowship committee consisting of at least two members with expertise in the natural science and natural history possibilities for y_to assist them in determining a winner of y the fellowship conimittee will review all applications from z the fellowship committee will then provide the board_of directors their recommendation along with a synopsis of the recommended project the board_of directors will make the final_decision based on recommendations from the fellowship committee the winner will then be announced to each faculty committee no family_member of x z faculty committee or fellowship committee is eligible for the fellowship_grant the number and amount of fellowships given by x will be determined by the evaluation of the applications and available grant monies available for the year the hope is to give at least one fellowship per year the fellowship_grant will be given to z in which x will work with the financial aid or other departments to get the fellowship_grant to the applicant in a timely manner progress on the research of the project is required in order to receive the full amount of the fellowship_grant the progress reports should be given to the faculty committee every six months the projected is being researched the faculty committee will then forward the progress to x when the project has been completed a final report on the findings should be sent to the faculty committee within days after completion the faculty committee will forward the results to x fellowship may be terminated if the reports are not completed the x agrees to maintain records that include the following __ information used to evaluate the qualification of potential grantees ii iii iv identification of the grantees including any relationship of any grantee to the private_foundation the amount and purpose of each grant and all grantee reports and other follow-up data obtained in administering the private foundation’s grant program sec_4945 and b of the code impose certain excise_taxes on taxable_expenditures made by a private_foundation sec_4945 of the code provides that the term taxable_expenditure means any amount_paid or incurred by a private_foundation as a grant to an individual for travel study or other similar purposes by such individual unless such grant satisfies the requirements of subsection g sec_4945 of the code provides that sec_4945 shall not apply to individual grants awarded on an objective and nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to a procedure approved in advance if it is demonstrated that the grant constitutes a prize or award which is subject_to the provisions of sec_74 if the recipient of such prize or award is selected from the general_public or the purpose of the grant is to achieve a specific objective produce a report or similar product or improve or enhance a jiterary artistic musical scientific teaching or other similar capacity skill or talent of the grantee sec_53_4945-4 of the regulations provides that to secure approval a private_foundation must demonstrate that gi iii its grant procedure includes an objective and nondiscriminatory selection process such procedure is reasonably calculated to result in performance by grantees of the activities that the grants are intended to finance and the foundation plans to obtain reports to determine whether the grantees performed activities that the grants are intended to finance based on the information submitted and assuming your award programs will be conducted as proposed with a view to provide objectivity and nondiscrimination in making the awards we have determined that your procedures for granting the awards comply with the requirements contained in sec_4945 of the code and that awards granted in accordance with such procedures will not constitute taxable_expenditures within the meaning of sec_4945 this determination is conditioned on the understanding that there will be no material_change in the facts upon which it is based it is further conditioned on the premise that no grants will be awarded to foundation managers or members of the selection committee or for a purpose that is inconsistent with the purpose described in sec_170 of the code the approval of your award program procedures herein constitutes a one-time approval of your system standards and procedures designed to result in awards which meet the requirements of sec_4945 of the code this determination only covers the grant programs described above thus approval sball apply to subsequent award programs only as long as the standards and procedures under which they are conducted do not differ materially from those described in your request any funds you distribute to individuals must be made on a true charitable basis in furtherance of the purposes for which you are organized therefore you should maintain adequate_records aud case histories so that any or all award distributions can be substantiated upon request by the internal_revenue_service this determination is directed only to the organization that requested it section of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as a precedent ‘you must report any future changes in your grant making procedures please keep a copy of this letter in yout permanent records we have sent a copy of this letter to your representative as indicated in your power of attomey if you have any questions please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above sincerely yours robert choi director exempt_organizations rulings and agreements


internal_revenue_service department of the treasury index number washington dc number release date person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc dom corp 2-plr-105127-99 date date legend corporation a corporation b parent sub state z date date date date date year this is in response to your letter dated date requesting rulings on behalf of the above named taxpayer as to the federal_income_tax consequences of a completed transaction specifically rulings were requested under sec_336 and sec_337 of the internal_revenue_code additional information was provided in letters dated april plr-105127-99 july and date the material information submitted for consideration is summarized below corporation a is a state z nonprofit corporation that is exempt from federal income_taxation pursuant to an internal_revenue_service determination_letter issued on date corporation a wholly owns parent which in turn wholly owns sub parent is the common parent of an affiliated_group_of_corporations filing consolidated_returns the parent group corporation b is a wholly-owned subsidiary of sub corporation b was incorporated in year as a taxable for-profit corporation under the laws of state z corporation b employs the accrual_method of accounting and has a taxable_year ending on date corporation a acquired all of the stock in corporation b on or before date in a transaction that is represented to qualify under sec_355 the distribution prior to the distribution_corporation b was a member of the parent group and joined in the filing of the parent group’s consolidated_return corporation b has engaged in the following transaction on date a date prior to the effective date of the final regulations under sec_1_337_d_-4 corporation b filed amended and restated articles of incorporation pursuant to the laws of state z to convert from a for-profit corporation to a nonprofit corporation the state law conversion on date corporation b filed form_1023 application_for recognition of exemption requesting exemption from federal_income_tax under sec_501 as an organization described in sec_501 in a letter issued on date the internal_revenue_service determined that corporation b is exempt from federal_income_tax under sec_501 of the code as an organization described in sec_501 the effective date of the exemption is date the following representations have been made in connection with the transaction a b c the conversion of corporation b from for-profit to nonprofit status through amendment of its articles of incorporation did not cause a dissolution under the law of state z after the conversion corporation b continues to conduct its historic_business corporation b has no plan or intention to sell or otherwise dispose_of its assets except for dispositions made in the ordinary course of business plr-105127-99 based solely on the information submitted and representations made we rule as follows the conversion of corporation b from a taxable for-profit corporation to a tax- exempt nonprofit corporation will not result in the recognition of gain_or_loss under sec_336 and sec_337 no opinion is expressed about the tax treatment of the transaction under any other provisions of the code and regulations or about the tax treatment of any conditions existing at the time of or effects resulting from the transaction that is not specifically covered by the above ruling in particular no opinion is expressed as to whether i the state law conversion qualifies as a reorganization under sec_368 ii the distribution of the stock in corporation b qualifies under sec_355 or sec_301 or iii the consolidated_return_regulations under sec_1502 apply to the distribution of the stock in corporation b to corporation a pursuant to which corporation b leaves the parent group the rulings in this letter are based on the facts and representations submitted under penalties of perjury in support of the request for a ruling verification of that information may be required as part of the audit process this ruling is addressed only to the taxpayer who requested it sec_6110 provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent a copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the federal_income_tax return of each taxpayer involved for the taxable_year in which the transaction occurred in accordance with a power_of_attorney currently on file with this office a copy of this ruling is being sent to the taxpayer sincerely assistant chief_counsel corporate by lewis k brickates assistant to chief branch


third party communication date of communication month dd yyyy cca_2014030508270501 id uilc number release date from sent wednesday march am to cc bcc subject fw a question under 87_tc_783 the court did not have jurisdiction over partnership items except for computational purposes sec_6222 under sec_6227 the partner is entitled to file a request_for_administrative_adjustment on form_8082 within years of the date of the partnership return sec_6227 if they did not meet these requirements it is an invalid claim see samuelli v commisioner 132t c no


t c memo united_states tax_court roger a buchanan petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no 23587-11l filed date roger a buchanan pro_se diana n wells for respondent memorandum findings_of_fact and opinion goeke judge this is a collection_due_process cdp appeal pursuant to sec_6330 in which petitioner roger buchanan asks this court to review the determinations of the internal_revenue_service irs appeals_office the unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the internal_revenue_code issue for decision is whether respondent’s settlement officer abused her discretion in rejecting petitioner’s proposed offer-in-compromise we hold that she did not findings_of_fact petitioner resided in indiana when he filed his petition respondent sent petitioner a letter lt-11nc final notice_of_intent_to_levy and notice of your right to a hearing levy notice advising him that respondent intended to impose a levy against him for his unpaid trust fund recovery penalty liabilities tfrp liabilities for the tax periods ended march june september and date and march and date and that petitioner could request a hearing with the irs appeals_office when respondent issued the levy notice petitioner’s total tfrp liabilities were dollar_figure petitioner timely mailed respondent a form request for a collection_due_process or equivalent_hearing cdp hearing in his form petitioner requested an installment_agreement an offer-in-compromise or currently-not- collectible status petitioner’s request was forwarded to the irs appeals_office an irs settlement officer sent a letter to petitioner that scheduled a cdp hearing and requested petitioner to provide certain information john brengle who held a power_of_attorney for petitioner faxed various documents for the settlement officer’s review in anticipation of the hearing those documents included a form_636 offer_in_compromise oic form 433-a collection information statement for wage earners and self-employed individuals two form 433-a attachments bank account information and wage and income information the form 433-a attachments detailed petitioner’ sec_25 interest in several parcels of land collectively buchanan farms and petitioner’s business_expenses the attachments did not however include a value for buchanan farms or any information showing the value of petitioner’ sec_25 interest in his oic petitioner offered to pay a total of dollar_figure to satisfy his tfrp liabilities on the basis of doubt as to collectibility the settlement officer postponed petitioner’s hearing while the irs centralized offer_in_compromise unit considered petitioner’s oic the settlement officer rescheduled the hearing and requested additional information from petitioner mr brengle responded with the information and participated in the hearing on petitioner’s behalf during the cdp hearing the settlement officer stated that she would make a determination based upon the information petitioner had previously provided issues raised and discussed during the hearing and any additional posthearing information requested and provided among the items provided to the settlement officer was a tax_assessment for buchanan farms that showed a total assessed value of dollar_figure mr brengle also provided a letter asserting the value of petitioner’ sec_25 interest in buchanan farms would be dollar_figure if petitioner could liquidate it using all the information provided the settlement officer issued a corrected notice_of_determination concerning collection action s under sec_6320 and or for petitioner’s tfrp liabilities this notice displayed an income and expense table and an asset-equity table the asset-equity table showed that petitioner had dollar_figure in total equity the income and expense table showed that petitioner’s monthly expenses exceeded his monthly income by dollar_figure the settlement officer informed petitioner she had determined that his accounts are currently not collectible that the proposed levy action would not be allowed and that petitioner’s proposed oic had been rejected because the information petitioner provided did not support it petitioner timely petitioned this court for a redetermination the petition disputes respondent’s rejection of the proposed oic but does not dispute the underlying liabilities i jurisdiction opinion petitioner comes before us pursuant to sec_6330 to appeal the settlement officer’s determination in his cdp hearing j urisdiction under sec_6330 is established when there is a written notice that embodies a determination to proceed with the collection of the taxes in issue and a timely filed petition 117_tc_159 petitioner received a notice_of_determination stating that his liabilities are currently not collectible that the proposed levy action would not be allowed and that his proposed oic was rejected petitioner timely petitioned this court in response to the irs notice_of_determination however because the irs decided not to proceed with the collection_of_taxes in issue the question arises whether the oic determination is moot although the settlement officer determined that the proposed levy was not appropriate and that petitioner’s tfrp liabilities are not currently collectible collection by levy is still possible in the future if petitioner’s financial condition improves a determination to accept the proposed oic would have permitted the irs previously issued a notice_of_federal_tax_lien on buchanan farms and on petitioner’s home respondent to treat petitioner as having met his payment obligations and would have eliminated the possibility of a future collection action accordingly we do not believe the oic determination is moot ii cdp hearings in general and standard of review if a taxpayer fails to pay any federal_income_tax liability after notice_and_demand sec_6331 authorizes the irs to collect the tax by levy on the taxpayer’s property before proceeding with a levy the commissioner must issue a final notice_of_intent_to_levy and notify the taxpayer of the right to a hearing sec_6330 and b during the hearing a taxpayer may raise any relevant issue including challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action and possible collection alternatives sec_6330 following the hearing the appeals_office must determine whether the proposed collection action may proceed for a notice_of_levy the appeals_office is required to consider whether the secretary has met the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure the relevant issues raised by the taxpayer and whether the proposed collection action appropriately balances the need for efficient collection_of_taxes with the taxpayer’s concerns that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary sec_6330 the settlement officer considered each of these prongs and found petitioner’s accounts were currently not collectible and the proposed levy action would not be allowed petitioner does not argue that the secretary failed to meet the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure and is not challenging the underlying liabilities however petitioner claims that the settlement officer erred in rejecting his proposed oic where a taxpayer’s underlying tax_liability is not in dispute the court reviews the commissioner’s determination for abuse_of_discretion see 114_tc_604 114_tc_176 to establish an abuse_of_discretion the taxpayer must prove that the decision of the commissioner was arbitrary capricious or without sound basis in fact or in law 129_tc_107 citing sego v commissioner t c pincite and 112_tc_19 in reviewing for abuse_of_discretion we generally consider only the arguments issues and other matters that were raised at the hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the appeals_office giamelli v commissioner t c pincite iii whether the settlement officer abused her discretion petitioner argues that the settlement officer’s determination merely delays respondent’s inevitable future collection attempts petitioner asks this court to require the irs to accept his proposed oic and put an end to the collection action permanently petitioner’s proposed oic offered to pay dollar_figure in satisfaction of his tfrp liabilities which had grown to dollar_figure by the time he submitted his oic the settlement officer rejected this proposed oic because the information petitioner provided did not support it using the information petitioner provided the settlement officer determined that petitioner’s reasonable collection potential was about dollar_figure petitioner argues that respondent overvalued his equity in buchanan farms ie dollar_figure because he and his three brothers have a binding agreement that requires unanimous consent to sell the property petitioner argues it would be impossible for him to sell the land to pay his tax_liabilities he also claims liquidating his interest would be difficult because his brothers were not interested in buying him out and no third party would buy his interest on account of the restrictions under the brothers’ agreement although petitioner alleges the difficulty of liquidating his interest in this property he has produced no evidence sufficient to prove the settlement officer made an arbitrary determination he relies solely on his own self-serving testimony and the brothers’ agreement in 87_tc_74 we held that the court is not required to accept a party’s self-serving testimony that is uncorroborated by persuasive evidence petitioner failed to produce any testimony from his brothers to support his claim that they were not interested in purchasing his interest petitioner also failed to produce any evidence showing that the land could not be partitioned or that a loan could not be obtained against his interest the only evidence of value petitioner produced for the cdp hearing indicated that his interest in buchanan farms had a value of dollar_figure given these facts we hold that petitioner has failed to prove abuse_of_discretion regarding his proposed oic iv conclusion we hold that the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in rejecting petitioner’s proposed oic we therefore sustain the determination of the settlement officer in reaching our holdings herein we have considered all arguments made and to the extent not mentioned above we conclude they are moot irrelevant or without merit to reflect the foregoing an appropriate decision will be entered