Siquieros v. USA

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-50980
Summary Calendar
ALICIA SIQUIEROS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(3:03-CV-478-FM)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Alicia Siquieros (“Taxpayer”) appeals the
district court’s denial of her motion for summary judgment and
grant of the motion for summary judgment of the Defendant-Appellee
United States of America (“the government”), dismissing Taxpayer’s
lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Notice of Determination
issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”). We affirm.
The gravamen of Taxpayer’s complaint is that the I.R.S. abused
its discretion in refusing to accept her $100 offer to compromise

-- 1 of 3 --

2
her federal tax liability arising from the Trust Fund Recovery
Penalty assessed by the I.R.S. against Taxpayer as a “responsible
party” for employment taxes withheld from employees of E.C.
Trucking, Inc. but not paid over to the government by that
corporation (which sought protection in bankruptcy and is no longer
in business). Taxpayer is deemed a responsible party by virtue of
her position of employment with E.C. Trucking, Inc. at the times in
question.
Like the district court, we are bound to apply the highly
deferential abuse of discretion standard to the decisions of the
I.R.S. complained of by the Taxpayer. In so doing, we have
carefully considered the record on appeal (which demonstrates, as
confirmed by the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, that
there are no genuinely disputed issues of material fact) and the
issues of law presented and argued in the appellate briefs of the
parties, observing the extensive exhaustion of administrative
remedies by Taxpayer, through the appellate process, including the
offers and counteroffers of settlement by the parties.
It is immaterial whether we or the district court might have
exercised our discretion differently and either accepted one of the
settlement proposals from Taxpayer or extended counteroffers that
Taxpayer might have deemed more lenient. Our review is limited to
determining whether, under all the circumstances of the case ——
including factors favorable to Taxpayer’s position, such as age,
health, financial condition, and lack of factual culpability —— the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
I.R.S. abused its discretion in rejecting the compromise offers of
Taxpayer or in making its own counteroffers. Our thorough review
of the facts and applicable law under this highly deferential
standard of review convinces us that, as a matter of law, the
I.R.S. cannot be held to have abused its discretion. Consequently,
we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing
Taxpayer’s action.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --