Jan L. Ashlock v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAN L. ASHLOCK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-72570
Tax Ct. No. 8778-06L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jan L. Ashlock appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision concluding that
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) did not abuse his
discretion by rejecting Ashlock’s offer in compromise related to her income tax
liabilities for 1996 and 2000–2003. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72570 2
§ 7482(a). On appeal from the Tax Court, we review for an abuse of discretion the
Commissioner’s decision whether to accept an offer in compromise and review for
clear error the Commissioner’s assessment of the facts. Keller v. Comm’r, 568
F.3d 710, 716 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The Commissioner’s finding that Ashlock had a $25,000 dissipated property
interest was not clearly erroneous in light of the conflicting evidence in the record
before the Commissioner as to Ashlock’s interest in the property. See United
States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (a finding is
clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that
may be drawn from the record). We may not consider evidence submitted on
appeal that was not part of the record before the Commissioner. See Keller, 568
F.3d at 718.
In light of his finding, the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion by
rejecting Ashlock’s offer in compromise on the ground that a minimally acceptable
offer would have included the value of the dissipated property interest. See id. at
716-18 (discussing offers in compromise); see also Internal Revenue Manual
§ 5.8.5.4 (providing that a dissipated asset may be included in the valuation of a
minimally acceptable offer).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --