William H. and Jo Anne Lindley - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
               There never was and never has been any intent to                       
               dissipate assets.  The taxpayers believed the amount                   
               due was still being determined in litigation.                          
          In the February 28, 2005, letter, petitioners also stated:                  
               The taxpayers would like to substantially increase the                 
               Offer amount and abandon their special circumstances                   
               arguments related to retirement, medical conditions,                   
               and the fact that they are victims of a convicted                      
               felon.  They would like to offer the full collection                   
               potential * * * of $150,000 contingent on acceptance of                
               the payment on November 1, 2006.                                       
               On March 8, 2005, respondent issued petitioners a notice of            
          determination.7  Because he concluded that petitioners dropped              
          their doubt as to collectibility with special circumstances and             
          effective tax administration arguments, respondent did not                  
          address those arguments.  Respondent determined that there was no           
          doubt as to petitioners’ liability because the assessments were             
          made pursuant to decisions entered in Durham Farms #1, J.V. v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-159, affd. 59 Fed. Appx. 952 (9th             
          Cir. 2003).                                                                 
               In evaluating petitioners’ offer-in-compromise based on                
          doubt as to collectibility, respondent accepted the values of               
          assets petitioners reported.  Respondent did not include the                
          value of the house, the 1997 Ford F-150, the 1999 Toyota 4-                 
          Runner, or the household goods in the calculation of petitioners’           

               7  Respondent issued two nearly identical notices of                   
          determination, one addressed to Mr. Lindley and the other                   
          addressed to Mrs. Lindley.  To avoid confusion, we refer to the             
          notices of determination as a single notice of determination.               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011