GARY LEE PANSIER and JOAN RENEE PANSIER v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 22, 2015 *
Decided September 25, 2015
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 15‐1386
GARY LEE PANSIER and JOAN RENEE
PANSIER,
Petitioners‐Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent‐Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
No. 3143‐13L
Mary Ann Cohen,
Judge.
O R D E R
Gary and Joan Pansier appeal from the tax court’s decision to uphold the Internal
Revenue Service’s determination sustaining proposed levies to collect unpaid tax
liabilities and rejecting their offer‐in‐compromise. Because the tax court correctly
concluded that the IRS acted within its discretion when it rejected the Pansiers’
settlement offer, we affirm.
* After examining the briefs and records, we have concluded that oral argument
is unnecessary. Thus these appeals are submitted on the briefs and records. See FED. R.
A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 15‐1
T
date bac
Pansier,
collect o
see 26 U.
their set
eight no
based on
T
notices—
penalty,
Pansiers
But the a
calculate
that the
1386
The Pansiers
ck two deca
576 F.3d 72
on those liab
.S.C. § 7122
ttlement off
otices from t
n debts for
The notices
—from 2005
and intere
s owed $6,7
amount du
es only accr
Pansiers ow
s have been
ades. See In
26, 728 (7th
bilities. In 2
2, offering to
fer a financi
the IRS war
tax years 1
differed sub
5 and 2006—
st. For exam
764.24:
e in the six
rued intere
we only $79
n in a protra
re Pansier, 4
Cir. 2009).
2012 the Pan
o pay $13,3
ial statemen
rning them
999 through
bstantially
—calculated
mple, the ac
other notic
st. The acco
9.37:
acted battle
451 F. App’
In 2009 the
nsiers subm
365.55 to set
nt listing th
m that the ag
h 2006.
in the calcu
d the amoun
ccount sum
ces exclude
ount summ
e with the IR
’x 593 (7th
e agency be
mitted an “o
ttle their de
heir income
gency inten
ulated figur
nt due to in
mmary for 2
es the balan
mary for 200
RS over tax
Cir. 2011);
egan its late
offer‐in‐com
ebt. They su
e and expen
nded to levy
res. The tw
nclude the c
2006 shows
nce and pen
04, for insta
Pa
x liabilities
United Stat
est attempt
mpromise,”
ubmitted w
nses, as wel
y their asset
wo most rece
current bala
that the
nalties and
nce, specifi
age 2
that
es v.
to
”
with
ll as
ts
ent
ance,
ies

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 15‐1
In
belief th
interest.
reflected
confirme
only the
done, th
‘Penalty
generate
‘Amoun
figures”
fraud co
docume
see Pansi
in the go
that age
T
sustain t
unpaid t
its discre
T
in rejecti
originals
1386
n January 2
hat they had
IRS compu
d on these n
ed that “the
e computer
he officer ad
y’ figures fro
ed ‘Interest
nt Due’ figu
and explai
onviction w
entation”—a
ier, 576 F.3d
overnment’
ncy can reje
The Pansiers
the levies to
tax liabilitie
etion by rej
The tax cour
ing the sett
s had not b
013 the IRS
d altered sev
uter records
notices are i
e actual bal
generated
dded, “by c
om each no
’ amount.”
ures does no
ined that “s
were used in
an apparen
d 726. The o
’s best inter
ect settleme
s petitioned
o their unp
es for 1999 t
jecting their
rt conclude
tlement offe
een introdu
S’s Office of
veral of the
s, an appea
inaccurate.”
lance due a
accrued int
ompletely e
otice and re
The officer
ot match th
similar tacti
n the submi
nt reference
officer conc
rest. See INT
ent offer as
d the tax co
aid tax liab
through 200
r offer, and
d that the a
er. It assum
uced into th
f Appeals re
e notices to
als officer sa
” Analysis
amounts we
terest as the
eliminating
placing the
r noted that
he computer
ics used by
ission of the
to Gary Pa
cluded that
TERNAL R EV
not in best
urt, disputi
bilities for 1
06. The Pan
d they denie
agency did
med that the
he record) b
ejected the P
require pay
aid, “confir
of the copie
ere removed
e current ba
g the ‘Curre
e ‘Amount D
t “[t]he font
r font used
y the taxpay
e offer in co
ansier’s con
accepting t
VENUE M AN
t interest of
ing the age
995 throug
nsiers assert
ed altering
not act “arb
e tax forms
but determi
Pansiers’ of
yment of on
rm that the
es, the offic
d and chan
alance due.
ent Balance
Due’ with t
t used for th
for the actu
yer that resu
ompromise
nviction for
the Pansier
UAL § 5.8.7
f governme
ency’s decis
gh 1998 and
ted that the
the docum
bitrarily or
had not bee
ined that th
Pa
ffer based o
nly the accr
amounts
cer continue
nged to refle
.” This was
e Due’ and
the comput
he altered
ual ‘Interes
ulted in a ta
tax fraud,
rs’ offer was
.7.1 (explain
nt).
sion to (1)
d (2) collect
e agency ab
ents.
capricious
en altered (
he settlemen
age 3
on its
rued
ed,
ect
ter
st’
ax
s not
ning
used
sly”
(the
nt

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 15‐1386 Page 4
officer did not act unreasonably in concluding that the Pansiers had deliberately
misrepresented their total liabilities in their offer. The court pointed to Gary Pansier’s
“history of submitting false documents and the settlement officer’s verification of the
amounts actually due far in excess of the amounts shown on the forms,” as well as the
Pansiers’ pattern in prior disputes with the IRS of being “unwilling to accept any
disagreement with their strongly held convictions that they were right.” The court also
noted that the Pansiers had engaged in “hostile, obstructive, and frivolous conduct at
every stage of the proceedings” and rejected the Pansiers’ suggestion “that the
settlement officer could have persuaded them to change their position or should have
engaged in further attempts to do so.” The court later denied the Pansiers’ motion to
vacate or revise the decision.
On appeal, the Pansiers argue that the tax court erroneously concluded that the
IRS did not abuse its discretion when it refused to negotiate a settlement. In their view,
the settlement officer’s conclusion that they altered the notices in an effort to sway him
to accept the offer is irrational and clearly erroneous.
The tax court correctly concluded that the IRS did not abuse its discretion in
rejecting the settlement offer based on ample evidence that the Pansiers had altered
documents. The amount of the Pansiers’ tax liabilities that is recorded on the notices is
nearly $90,000 less than the amount that they actually owe, as reflected in the IRS’s
records. Moreover, the Pansiers admitted to the tax court that they had altered the forms
they submitted with their offer by inserting the interest amount in the “Amount Due”
boxes on the notices and changing the title of the financial statement. And in light of
Gary Pansier’s previous conviction for filing false IRS forms, it was reasonable for the
agency to scrutinize the documents submitted with the offer. Given the IRS’s reasonable
conclusion that the Pansiers submitted falsified documents, the IRS acted within its
discretion in rejecting the offer as not in the government’s best interest. See INTERNAL
R EVENUE MANUAL § 1.2.14.1.15(2) (allowing agency to reject offer that “might in any way
be detrimental to the Government’s interests”); Kindred v. Commʹr of Internal Revenue, 454
F.3d 688, 696 (7th Cir. 2006) (“The decision to entertain, accept or reject an offer in
compromise is squarely within the discretion of the appeals officer and the IRS in
general.”); cf. T REAS . REG . § 301.7122‐1(e)(5)(i) (allowing IRS to reopen case after
acceptance of settlement offer where “[f]alse information or documents are supplied in
conjunction with the offer”).
The Pansiers also contend that the tax court violated the rule announced in SEC
v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947), by basing its decision on grounds other than those

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 15‐1386 Page 5
relied upon by the settlement officer—specifically by ruling against them because they
had engaged in ”hostile, obstructive, and frivolous conduct.” To the extent that the tax
court relied upon this ground as a basis for its decision, however, it was an alternative
and independent ground. The principal ground for its decision was the Pansiers’
submission of questionable documents—the same rationale relied on by the agency.
Any error the tax court committed in relying also on the alternative ground is harmless.
See Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920, 924 (7th Cir. 2010); Sahara Coal Co. v. Office of Workers
Comp. Programs, U.S. Depʹt of Labor, 946 F.2d 554, 558 (7th Cir. 1991).
The Pansiers raise numerous other challenges to the tax court’s rulings and the
IRS’s rejection of their offer. We have considered these arguments and conclude that
none has merit.
The Pansiers are frequent litigants and in the tax court’s view have “rejected or
ignored the holdings of the District Court, the bankruptcy court, the Court of Appeals,
and [the tax court].” This appeal is yet another in a frivolous and protracted attempt to
avoid paying their tax liabilities. We order the Pansiers to show cause within 14 days
why this court should not sanction them with a fine, the nonpayment of which may lead
to a circuit‐wide filing bar under In re City of Chicago, 500 F.3d 582, 585–86 (7th Cir. 2007),
and Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186–87 (7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --