Martin and Sharon Smith - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
                       MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION                        

               LARO, Judge:  Petitioners Martin Smith (Smith) and Sharon              
          Smith petitioned the Court under section 6330(d) to review the              
          determination of respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals)                   
          sustaining a proposed levy related to petitioners’ assessed                 
          Federal income tax liability (inclusive of additions to tax,                
          penalties, and interest) for 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1991; that               
          liability totaled $79,461.  Petitioners argue that the proposed             
          levy is improper because, they argue, Appeals was required to               
          accept their offer to pay $11,552 to compromise their assessed              
          and unassessed Federal income tax liability (inclusive of                   
          additions to tax, penalties, and interest) for 1984 through 1996;           
          petitioners estimate that liability to total $265,023.  We decide           
          whether Appeals abused its discretion in rejecting petitioners’             
          offer.  We hold it did not.2                                                






               2 Petitioners also dispute a determination by Appeals                  
          concerning their liability for increased interest under sec.                
          6621(c).  As to this dispute, the parties agreed to be bound by a           
          final decision in Ertz v. Commissioner, docket No. 20336-04L,               
          which involved a similar issue.  On Jan. 24, 2007, the Court held           
          in Ertz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-15, that the Court lacks           
          jurisdiction to decide the issue to which the parties agreed to             
          be bound.  On the basis of Ertz v. Commissioner, supra, we shall            
          dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the portion of this case that              
          concerns petitioners’ liability for increased interest under sec.           
          6621(c).                                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007