Michael Gordon Banks v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL GORDON BANKS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-72163
Tax Ct. No. 5783-18 L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Michael Gordon Banks appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision to sustain
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s notice of federal tax lien related to his
outstanding tax liabilities from the years 2013 and 2015. We have jurisdiction under
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the Tax Court’s decision de novo, meaning we
engage in “a fresh analysis of whether the Commissioner abused his discretion.”
Fargo v. Comm’r, 447 F.3d 706, 709 (9th Cir. 2006). Finding no basis to conclude
there was an abuse of discretion, we affirm.
The Tax Court correctly determined that it was not an abuse of discretion to
sustain the rejection of Banks’s offer in compromise of $12,000. Banks did not
dispute that his assets totaled more than $110,000, nor did he provide evidence that
paying the outstanding $23,000 liability in full would cause him economic hardship.
See id. at 709 (describing the economic hardship analysis as one focused on basic
living expenses). It was not an abuse of discretion to reject Banks’s offer in
compromise on these facts. See Keller v. Comm’r, 568 F.3d 710, 717–18 (9th Cir.
2009) (finding no abuse of discretion where calculations revealed the taxpayers
could afford to pay substantially more than their offers).
The Tax Court correctly determined that it was not an abuse of discretion to
decline to withdraw the notice of federal tax lien. Although the Taxpayer Advocate
Service found that withdrawal of the lien would be in Banks’s best interest, there has
never been a determination that withdrawal would also be in the best interest of the
United States as required by I.R.C. § 6323(j)(1)(D). There is no support for Banks’s
argument that the notice was prematurely filed because his offer in compromise was
pending.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Finally, we reject as meritless Banks’s claims that the Commissioner engaged
in criminal activity or failed to follow proper procedures.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --