Attorney-at-Law

“YOU SAY THAT YOU WANT RESTITUTION”

In Uncategorized on 01/05/2016 at 17:17

Misquoting the 1968 Lennon opus, I refer my readers to Wayne Rebuck, 2016 T. C. Memo. 3, filed 1/5/16.

Even before his case gets to Judge Ruwe, Wayne’s got problems.

“… a grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed an indictment against petitioner along with 10 codefendants on one count of conspiring to defraud the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 371. The grand jury charged that petitioner and 10 codefendants were involved in an organization that conducted sales seminars throughout the United States and solicited clients for fraudulent offshore and domestic trust packages by falsely representing that taxpayers could lawfully avoid paying Federal income tax by placing income and assets into the organization’s trust packages.” 2016 T. C Memo. 3, at p. 2.

Judge Ruwe is scanty with the details, but Wayne walked out of USDCEDPA with a conviction for conspiring as aforesaid, and a $!6 million joint and several liability with his co-defendants for restitution.

Wayne tries to get clean with some of his own tax liabilities. First he tried an OIC, but that got bounced because Wayne was still paying restitution. Apparently though Wayne gave some, neither he nor his codefendants gave all.

Then a new SO got the case, and offered Wayne an installment agreement, which Wayne claimed he couldn’t pay. But the IA was conditioned on Wayne paying the restitution, which he hadn’t paid in full.

Wayne claims he shouldn’t be required to pay restitution to get a collection alternative.

No dice, says Judge Ruwe.

“When a taxpayer owing restitution submits an OIC to the IRS, IRM pt. 5.1.5.24.5 requires that the offer provide for the full payment of the restitution amount. Petitioner’s OIC did not address his outstanding criminal restitution as required by the IRM. Generally, an Appeals officer does not abuse his or her discretion in rejecting an OIC when following guidelines set forth in the IRM.” 2016 T. C. Memo. 3, at p. 13.

And it doesn’t matter whether the years Wayne sought to compromise included or didn’t include the “nonrestitution” years. Wayne wanted doubt as to collectability, and that never works when restitution is outstanding.

Wayne argues that the SO should have come back with another offer after he rejected the IA, but that’s a loser, as we all know.

“Although petitioner indicated his interest in an installment agreement, he never proposed a specific amount or set forth a payment schedule. … petitioner’s representative requested that SO X propose a PPIA [partial payment installment agreement] based on petitioner’s income and expenses. Although he was not required to do so…SO X proposed a PPIA…. Petitioner, through his representative, rejected this offer. Despite arguing before this Court that SO X did not consider his medical condition and decreasing future earnings, petitioner did not make a counteroffer to the… proposal. Moreover, petitioner did not present any other persuasive evidence or arguments demonstrating that SO X abused his discretion. Accordingly, we find that SO X did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the proposed levy after proposing a PPIA….” 2016 T. C. Memo. 3, at pp. 16-17. (Name omitted).

IRS need not negotiate with itself.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: