- 2 -
merits of his tax liabilities for 1991 and 1996 and to show that
respondent’s determination to proceed with collection was an
abuse of discretion.1
On November 5, 2003, respondent filed a Motion For Summary
Judgment seeking to preclude petitioner from addressing the
merits of his underlying tax liabilities. In a January 23, 2004,
Order, this Court granted respondent’s motion with respect to the
1991 tax year based on section 6330(c)(2)(B) and denied
respondent’s motion with respect to the 1996 year. At trial,
petitioner conceded that he did not want to raise the underlying
merits of his 1996 tax liability, which arose due to petitioner’s
self-assessed tax liability reflected in his 1996 tax return.
The remaining issue for our consideration is whether
respondent abused his discretion in refusing to accept
petitioner’s offer in compromise.
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the time of filing his petition, petitioner resided in
Phoenix, Arizona. On February 3, 1993, petitioner filed his 1991
Federal income tax return, and on July 19, 1994, respondent
1 It may be noted that in a prior Memorandum Opinion the
Court granted a motion by respondent to dismiss Ruth C. Voorhees
from this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. Voorhees v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-289.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011