Although his/her name is not mentioned in Eric Edward Chandler, 2015 T. C. Memo. 215, filed 11/4/15, and EE is pro se in this one, EE’s now-or-former attorney is my kind of lawyer.

EE offered an OIC of $2938 against tax liabilities exceeding $600K, claiming collectability. But EE is a long-time rounder.

Judge Lauber: “Petitioner has been a frequent visitor to this Court. This case involves his Federal income tax liabilities for 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 2005, and 2008.” 2015 T. C. Memo. 215, at p. 2 (Footnote omitted, but it details EE’s prior interfaces with Tax Court, all of which he lost).

EE now claims he was diagnosed with cancer, and his medical expenses went from $144 to $310 per month.

But during three of the years at issue, EE drew $400K from his retirement accounts, and was evasive about what he did with it when speaking to the SO (who rejected EE’s OIC and EE rejected the SO’s short-term deferred payment offer). But he sure didn’t pay his income taxes with any of it.

Looks like dissipation of assets, no? It did to the SO and Judge Lauber. And dissipated assets get hauled back into RCP.

So Judge Lauber sustains the rejection of the OIC and sustains the NFTL.

But the good part is EE’s trial testimony. It must have endeared EE to Judge Lauber.

“When questioned at trial about his retirement account withdrawals, petitioner testified that his lawyer had advised him to withdraw the money and ‘just go spend it.’ He testified that he spent this money ‘on anything and everything’; that he had no records of what he spent the money on; and that he simply ‘had a good time.’” 2015 T. C. Memo. 215, at p. 6.

With pardonable restraint, Judge Lauber repeats EE’s jolly admission.

“The SO gave petitioner multiple opportunities to explain how he disposed of the funds he withdrew from his retirement accounts…, but he made no effort to do so. His testimony at trial that he ‘had a good time’ spending the funds on ‘anything and everything’ would not support the conclusion that the assets in question were expended for essential living expenses. We find that the SO did not abuse her discretion by treating petitioner’s retirement account withdrawals as ‘dissipated assets’ and rejecting his OIC for that reason.” 2015 T. C. Memo. 215, at pp. 9-10.

Gotta love EE’s attorney. I wish I could give my clients that kind of advice.