Tucker v. Commissioner
400 U.S. App. D.C. 192
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Tucker underpaid federal taxes for 1999–2003; total underpayment over $24,000, liability over $35,000 by 2004.
- IRS sent a Notice of Federal Tax Lien and CDP hearing rights under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320, 6330 to review lien and collectability.
- Appeals Office conducts CDP hearings through settlement officers, appeals officers, and team managers, not a statutorily created court; decisions reviewable by Tax Court.
- Tucker proposed an offer-in-compromise (OIC); settlement officer rejected it; team manager approved rejection.
- Tax Court initially remanded for supplemental CDP hearing; subsequent officer decisions again rejected Tucker's OIC; Tax Court later upheld Commissioner.
- Issue is whether Appeals employees are Officers of the United States under Appointments Clause and whether their rejection of Tucker’s OIC was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Appeals employees Officers under the Appointments Clause? | Tucker argues Appeals employees wield significant authority and are Officers. | Commissioner contends no Officer status; they are employees with limited discretion. | Appeals employees are not inferior Officers; Appointments Clause does not apply. |
| Did Appeals abuse discretion in rejecting Tucker's OIC? | Tucker contends dissipated assets were miscalculated to undermine OIC. | IRS acted within guidelines; dissipated assets could justify rejection if appropriate. | No abuse of discretion; dissipated assets properly analyzed and resulting decision permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (describes officer status and roles of special trial judges)
- Landry v. FDIC, 204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (analyzes 'established by Law' and officer/employee distinction)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (distinguishes principal vs inferior officers and appointments)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) (reiterates significant authority requirement for Officers)
- Chenery Corp. v. DEA, 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (Cheney principle prohibits judicial substitute of grounds)
- PDK Laboratories Inc. v. DEA, 362 F.3d 786 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency's corrective grounds and harmless error doctrine)