David T. Phillips; Jane T. Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID T. PHILLIPS; JANE T. PHILLIPS,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-70051
Tax Ct. No. 7854-18L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
David T. Phillips and Jane T. Phillips appeal the decision of the Tax Court
holding that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not abuse its discretion by
rejecting their offer in compromise related to their 2012 and 2014 tax liabilities.
We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo questions
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70051
of law, and for an abuse of discretion the Commissioner’s rejection of an offer in
compromise. Keller v. Comm’r, 568 F.3d 710, 716 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because taxpayers failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Commissioner’s
rejection of their settlement offer was an abuse of discretion. See id. at 717-18
(computational errors by the Commissioner in rejecting taxpayers’ offer in
compromise were not prejudicial and thus were not an abuse of discretion); Fargo
v. Comm’r, 447 F.3d 706, 709-10 (9th Cir. 2006) (the IRS has discretion to decide
whether to reject an offer in compromise after evaluating all facts and
circumstances).
We reject taxpayers’ contentions that the Commissioner abused its discretion
by failing to comply with internal policies.
We do not consider taxpayers’ arguments or allegations raised for the first
time on appeal because taxpayers have failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“Absent exceptional circumstances, this court will not consider an argument that
was not first raised in the Tax Court.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --