FOREST WHITAKER V. CIR, No. 16-73450 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 4 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOREST S. WHITAKER; KEISHA WHITAKER, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73450 Tax Ct. No. 18639-15L Petitioners-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Forest S. Whitaker and Keisha Whitaker appeal from the Tax Court’s summary judgment allowing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) to proceed with its collection action for the Whitakers’ federal income tax liability for tax year 2013. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. * 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). § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Miller v. Comm’r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. Because the Tax Court properly determined that the Settlement Officer did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the Whitakers’ request for an installment agreement, the Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the Commissioner. See 26 U.S.C. § 6159; 26 C.F.R. § 301.6159-1(b)(1)(i) (IRS Settlement Officer has discretion to accept or reject any proposed installment plan); see also 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (Settlement Officer must decide “whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.”). We reject as without merit the Whitakers’ contention that the IRS Office of Appeals was biased. AFFIRMED. 2 16-73450

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.