William J. Dicindio; Lois J. Dicindio v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE On Appeal from the United States Tax Court (Tax…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3476
___________
WILLIAM J. DICINDIO; LOIS J. DICINDIO,
Appellants
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States Tax Court
(Tax Court No. 7029-03L)
Tax Court Judge: Honorable John O. Colvin
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 11, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed February 20, 2008 )
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
William and Lois DiCindio appeal the Tax Court’s decision allowing the appellee
to proceed with a collection action. The procedural history of this case and the details of

-- 1 of 3 --

the DiCindios’ claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the Tax Court’s thorough
opinion, and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, the DiCindios filed a petition in the
Tax Court challenging a notice of determination with respect to fourteen years of unpaid
tax liabilities. The DiCindios did not challenge the amount of the taxes that they owe.
During the Tax Court proceedings, appellee agreed to evaluate an offer in compromise
from the DiCindios. The offer was returned to the DiCindios because they failed to
provide the information needed to evaluate the offer. They had also not shown that they
had paid estimated income tax for 2005 and 2006. The Tax Court upheld the notice of
determination. The DiCindios filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction
under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1).
On appeal, the DiCindios argue that the Tax Court erred by not directing appellee
to request and evaluate two offers in compromise. However, the offer specialist who
evaluated the offer noted that she was overlooking the absence of two offers and other
processing deficiencies because the offer had been submitted by order of the Tax Court.
Moreover, the offer was rejected because the DiCindios failed to provide the necessary
information to evaluate the offer, not because there were not two separate offers.
The DiCindios further argue that the appellee will not process an offer in
compromise unless the taxpayers are current with their estimated taxes. Therefore, they
contend that the Tax Court erred by denying their request to stay the case and their motion
for a reconsideration because they had filed a request for an extension of time to pay their
taxes. However, by filing a Form 4868, a taxpayer can only request an extension of time

-- 2 of 3 --

to file a return; filing the form does not entitle one to an extension of time to pay the taxes
owed. See Deaton v. Commissioner, 440 F.3d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 2006). The DiCindios
were given several opportunities and extensions of time to file their completed offer in
compromise. Their arguments are without merit.
The DiCindios’ final argument is that the appellee closed the file on their offer in
compromise while their motion for reconsideration was still pending before the Tax
Court. We agree with the Tax Court that this was not an abuse of discretion.
Appellee notes that a final notice of intent to levy was not sent for the tax years of
1988 and 2001 and that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over those years. Appellee
requests that the case be remanded to the Tax Court for removal of those years from the
decision. Accordingly, we will vacate the Tax Court decision in part and remand the
matter with instructions to correct the decision to remove the tax years 1988 and 2001. In
all other respects, we will affirm the decision of the Tax Court for the above reasons as
well as those set forth by the Tax Court.

-- 3 of 3 --