Williams v. Commissioner ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL O. WILLIAMS; SHERYL No. 09-73229
ANNE WILLIAMS,
Tax Ct. No. 21031-07L
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.
MICHAEL O. WILLIAMS; SHERYL No. 09-73231
ANNE WILLIAMS,
Tax Ct. No. 25205-07
Petitioners,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeals from the Decisions of the United States Tax Court
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: PREGERSON, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Michael and Sheryl Williams appeal two decisions of the United States Tax
Court. We affirm.
1. The Tax Court’s finding that the large assessments were made on
August 15, 2007, within the limitations period, is not clearly erroneous. See Keller
v. Comm’r, 568 F.3d 710, 716 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that we review the Tax
Court’s factual findings for clear error). The summary record of assessments,
known as the RACS Report-06, reflects an assessment date of August 15, 2007 and
contains a Document Locator Number (DLN) associated with the Williamses
throughout the documentary record. See Huff v. United States, 10 F.3d 1440, 1446
& n.5 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that the summary record of assessments, signed
by an assessment officer, “indicat[es] the date on which the actual assessment was
made”). The certificates of assessment (Form 4340) contain this same DLN and
confirm the August 15 assessment date. See Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d
531, 540 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that these certificates “are probative evidence in
and of themselves and, in the absence of contrary evidence, are sufficient to
establish that notices and assessments were properly made”). The testimony
adequately explained why the assessments were not reflected in the August 20,
2
2007 account transcripts and why the Forms 3552 were not postmarked until
August 21, 2007.
2. Counsel for petitioners conceded at oral argument that the limitations
period expired on August 15, 2007, not August 14.
3. The Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion by closing the
collection due process hearing before the large assessments were made. The
Appeals Office reasonably accommodated the Williamses’ requests for delay by
extending the hearing for two months and staying collection for an additional 120
days following the determination. The Williamses cite no authority for the
proposition that the Appeals Office was required to delay the determination further,
and the Appeals Office’s decision to close the hearing was consistent with the
Commissioner’s policy of closing collection due process hearings as expeditiously
as possible. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(e)(3) (Q&A E-9). The Williamses also
have not shown that they were prejudiced by the Appeals Office’s decision,
because they could have made a global settlement offer through the agency’s
general settlement program.
AFFIRMED.
3