- 35 -
however, that respondent has improperly focused on past, as
opposed to current, compliance; that petitioners were in at least
“substantial” compliance with their Federal tax obligations for
2003 forward; and that their noncompliance for earlier years was
justified by circumstances beyond their control. Hence, they
maintain that Mr. Skidmore improperly relied on noncompliance in
support of his determinations.
Undoubtably, the administrative record shows that
Mr. Skidmore looked in detail at the filing and payment history
for the years in issue. Such a review would seem to be inherent
in the very nature of the proceedings and does not raise a
spectre of impropriety. The fact that he may also have believed
erroneously that returns for 1996, 1997, and 1998 were filed late
likewise does not eliminate the possibility that he may have
appropriately relied on current noncompliance in recommending
that levy action be sustained. More salient is the fact that his
notes and the communications sent to petitioners reflect an
ongoing concern with failure to make sufficient provision for
estimated taxes.
When petitioners filed their 2003 return in August of 2004,
pursuant to an extension, they reported tax of $22,508 but only
$414 of withholding and no estimated payments. Although here
petitioners paid the balance of the tax due with the return, they
obviously were not in compliance with estimated payment
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011