Brombach v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo. 2012-265 (2012)
Facts
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) assessed deficiencies against Thomas Brombach (plaintiff) attributable to several taxable years. Brombach negotiated a settlement before the United States Tax Court whereby he agreed to pay $60,000 plus interest. Several years passed in which Brombach failed to pay out the settlement. Brombach’s liability grew to $152,000 because of interest, and the IRS filed a tax lien against all of Brombach’s assets. Brombach sought a collection due-process hearing with an IRS appeals officer. Brombach determined that his own reasonable collection potential was $28,000 and offered to compromise his tax debt for that amount. The appeals officer rejected Brombach’s offer, having calculated Brombach’s reasonable collection potential to be over $113,000. Brombach filed a petition in the Tax Court seeking a ruling that the IRS’s rejection of his offer was an abuse of discretion. The Tax Court held a trial and determined that Brombach had used valuation techniques that substantially undercalculated his reasonable collection potential. The Tax Court also determined that the IRS appeals officer had, in some cases, erroneously overestimated the value of certain items. Ultimately, the Tax Court found that Brombach’s actual reasonable collection potential was about $73,000.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
