Opinion
Docket No. 2826-06L.
Filed December 27, 2007.
Bs received a notice of deficiency but filed no petition in this Court. R assessed the tax reported and then sent Bs CDP notices that he had filed notices of federal tax lien and intended to collect the unpaid tax by levy. Bs requested a CDP hearing, at which they presented an offer-in-compromise based on doubt as to liability. R's officer who conducted the hearing issued a notice of determination sustaining the filing of the lien and postponing the levy but refused to consider Bs' proposed offer herself. Held, R committed no abuse of discretion in issuing the notice of determination, because sec. 6330(c), I.R.C., bars taxpayers who've received a notice of determination from challenging their underlying tax liability, and an offer-in-compromise based only on doubt as to liability is a challenge to that underlying liability.
Joe Alfred Izen, Jr., for petitioners.
Wesley J. Wong, for respondent.
OPINION
The Code encourages taxpayers to settle their differences with the IRS by compromise rather than litigation. One type of compromise is a compromise based on doubt as to liability, and that's the kind that Peter and Karen Baltic offered to the IRS. But they made their offer just as the IRS was poised to begin seizing their property — and after they had had a chance to contest their liability in our Court. Section 6330 says that taxpayers like the Baltics can't challenge their "underlying tax liability." The main question in this case — which we've apparently never quite squarely answered — is whether their making an offer-in-compromise based on doubt as to liability (an OIC-DATL) is a challenge to the "underlying tax liability."
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Background
In February 2003, the Commissioner sent the Baltics a notice of deficiency saying they owed over $100,000 in income tax and penalties for 1999. The Baltics don't dispute that they received the notice, and don't dispute that they never filed a petition in this Court to challenge it. Since the Baltics didn't challenge the deficiency, the Commissioner assessed it. The Baltics didn't pay and so, in June 2004, the Commissioner sent them a notice under section 6320 that he had filed a federal tax lien against their property, and a notice under section 6330 that he intended to levy their property to collect the unpaid tax. The Baltics promptly requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing. Their request stated that "We disagree with the determination of taxes and additions owed, and the calculations of the amounts, if any." Before the hearing was scheduled, they submitted an OIC-DATL that covered not just 1999, but all tax years from 1997 through 2003, offering $18,699 to compromise their entire income tax liability for all those years. They also submitted amended tax returns for 1997-1999 and 2003, and original tax returns for the years 2000-2002.
As with the Baltics' 1999 tax year, the Commissioner had already assessed deficiencies for the Baltics' 1997 and 1998 tax years after they failed to respond to a notice of deficiency for those years.
The Baltics enclosed a cashier's check for the proposed settlement amount with their OIC-DATL, noting on it that cashing the check meant acceptance of the OIC. This is not how the IRS does business. An OIC is accepted only when the taxpayer is notified in writing. Sec. 301.7122-1(e)(1), Proced. Admin. Regs. Cashing a check does not mean that the IRS has accepted the offer. Colebank v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-46; Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1956-219. The Commissioner took the check and applied it to the 1998 tax debt that the Baltics owed and then sent them a letter explaining that partial payment doesn't defeat a tax lien. His reason for doing so is unclear — sec. 301.7122-1(h), Proced. Admin. Regs., says the Commissioner should treat such checks as deposits, not payments; implying the Baltics should ultimately get the money refunded if their offer is rejected. (Sec. 7122(c)(1) was recently amended, Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-222, sec. 509, 120 Stat. 362, to require partial payment to be submitted with an OIC, but the amendment doesn't affect the Baltics, because they submitted their OIC before the amendment's effective date.)
The settlement officer who held the CDP hearing told the Baltics that they couldn't challenge the amount or existence of their tax liability for 1999 because they had had a chance to challenge the liability when they received a notice of deficiency and hadn't done so. She also explained to them that, even though she herself couldn't consider the OIC-DATL as part of the CDP hearing, an Appeals officer within another part of the IRS would consider it and a revenue officer in yet a third part of the IRS would examine the Baltics' amended 1999 return in what is called an "audit reconsideration." The settlement officer then ended the CDP hearing, and sent the Baltics a notice in which she determined that collection by levy would be postponed until the IRS both decided whether to accept the OIC-DATL and finished its "audit reconsideration," but that the lien would be sustained. (Sustaining the lien protects the government's priority over other creditors.) The Baltics offered no other collection alternatives.
The Baltics now argue that the settlement officer's refusal to consider the OIC-DATL herself, or at least to wait before issuing the notice of determination until the other parts of the IRS finished looking at the OIC-DATL and amended return, was an abuse of discretion. The Commissioner moved for summary judgment, and the motion was argued during a trial session in Las Vegas.
Sec. 6133(k)(1) generally blocks the IRS from collecting taxes by levy (though not by lien) while an OIC is pending. The Baltics' very narrow challenge is not to the IRS's decision to collect by levy — any levy to collect taxes owed for any of the years covered by their OIC is postponed by sec. 6331(k)(1) — but to the settlement officer's decision that she herself would not consider their OIC-DATL as a collection alternative during the CDP process.
The Baltics were residents of Ohio when they filed their petition, though they chose Las Vegas as their place of trial. Unless the parties stipulate to the contrary, any appeal will go to the Sixth Circuit. Sec. 7482(b)(1)(A) and (2).
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate where it is shown that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law." Rule 121(b); Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment is proper here since the parties don't dispute the facts at all, but disagree only about the law: Did the settlement officer abuse her discretion by issuing the notice of determination without considering the Baltics' pending OIC-DATL or amended 1999 return?
Section 6330(c)(2)(B) allows a taxpayer to challenge the existence or amount of his underlying tax liability if he neither received a notice of deficiency nor otherwise had an opportunity to dispute it. The Baltics' first line of attack is that they should have been allowed to challenge their underlying liability because section 6330(c)(2)(B) — though it allows challenges to "the underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency" — doesn't say that it allows such challenges " only if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency."
This parsing has no support in any caselaw, as the Baltics' counsel admitted at oral argument. And we won't be creating any here: Congress used section 6330(c) — and only section 6330(c) — to describe how a CDP hearing would work. We find no authority elsewhere in the Code to read that section's command that the IRS allow challenges to liability in some situations to mean that the IRS must allow challenges to liability in all situations.
The Baltics' next sally looks more effective. They claim that making an OIC-DATL is not a challenge to their underlying liability. If it's not, then it should have been considered at the CDP hearing, because section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii) lists OICs as a collection alternative that a taxpayer may raise at the hearing. We have, however, already come very close to holding that OIC-DATLs are a prohibited challenge to the underlying tax liability. In Hajiyani v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-198, we wrote in a footnote that an OIC-DATL "would address the merits of the underlying liability. Since petitioner is precluded from questioning the underlying liabilities, his offer would not provide him any relief. . . ." But the Baltics are right in noting that Hajiyani — in the text — held that the Commissioner was justified in not considering an OIC-DATL because the taxpayers hadn't even submitted one before the notice of determination came out. The same is true of the taxpayers in Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-142, and in Kindred v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 688, 696 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirming an unpublished order granting the Commissioner summary judgment).
We've also held that the Commissioner didn't abuse his discretion in rejecting an OIC-DATL where the underlying tax liability was previously stipulated in a Tax Court decision, because a stipulated tax liability can't validly be considered a "doubtful liability" under the applicable regulation. Sec. 301.7122-1(b)(1), Proced. Admin. Regs.; Oyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-178, affd. 97 Fed. Appx. 68 (8th Cir. 2004).
We recognize that the Baltics' case is a bit different. They plausibly distinguished their situation from cases like Hajiyani by having made sure that the IRS employee conducting their CDP hearing had an OIC-DATL sitting in front of her. And, though they didn't discuss Oyer, the Baltics could likewise distinguish that case from theirs by saying that they never signed a stipulated decision, but simply chose not to start a Tax Court case when they had a chance.
The Baltics also have one case, Siquieros v. United States, 94 AFTR 2d 2004-5518, 2005-1 USTC par. 50,244 (W.D. Tex. 2004), affd. 124 Fed. Appx. 279 (5th Cir. 2005), that they argue supports them. Or at least one sentence in that case that supports them: "Her [i.e., Siquieros's] offer based on doubt as to liability is not synonymous with a challenge to the underlying liability." Id. at 2004-5524, 2005-1 USTC par. 50,244, at 87,570.
The quote is accurate, but Siquieros remains the thinnest of supports for any general proposition that an OIC-DATL is not a challenge to an "underlying tax liability." It is, for one thing, a responsible-party, trust-fund case. And Siquieros was challenging underlying liability only in the sense that she was contesting her own responsibility for the tax, not in the sense of challenging the amount of that tax. Siquieros had not had an opportunity before her CDP hearing to challenge her responsibility for the unpaid tax; the Baltics did. And we conclude that that is an important — indeed decisive-difference. The word "liability" in section 6330(c)(2)(B) and section 301.7122-1(b)(1), Proced. Admin. Regs., refers not just to an amount of tax owed for a particular period but also the amount owed by a particular person for a particular period. Section 6203, defining a tax assessment, states that an assessment is the formal recording of a taxpayer's tax liability, and the accompanying regulation requires the summary record of assessment to "provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment." Sec. 301.6203-1, Proced. Admin. Regs. Siquieros was arguing only that she herself shouldn't be liable for her employer's failure to pay over the taxes because she was only a secretary.
The court held that the IRS did not abuse its discretion in refusing to accept Siquieros's OIC. Siquieros, 94 AFTR 2d at 2004-5518, 2005-1 USTC at 87,570-87,571. It's in the court's discussion of why the rejection wasn't an abuse of discretion that it noted that an OIC-DATL wasn't synonymous with a challenge to the underlying liability. Neither side had actually disputed the point. Id.
Taxes that employers withhold from their employees' wages are known as "trust fund taxes" because they are deemed a special fund in trust for the United States under sec. 7501(a). Slodov v. United States, 436 U.S. 238, 243 (1978). One remedy that the Commissioner has against a business that fails to pay these withheld taxes is to collect them from a "responsible person" within the company; i.e., someone who was required to pay over the tax. Sec. 6672. A sec. 6672 penalty is payable on notice and demand, without issuance of a notice of deficiency. See sec. 6212(a). Our Court therefore has no jurisdiction to review the penalty, Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000), and a taxpayer must usually pay and sue for a refund to get judicial review. Sec. 6672(c)(2); Steele v. United States, 280 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1960). A key issue in such cases is often whether the person suing for a refund is a "responsible person" within the meaning of sec. 6672(a). See, e.g., McGlothin v. United States, 720 F.2d 6 (6th Cir. 1983).
The Baltics are not arguing that the IRS is going after the wrong person. Neither Baltic, for example, is claiming innocent-spouse relief; they dispute only the amount of tax due. Which is, of course, exactly what they could have challenged by filing a petition when they got their notice of deficiency. We therefore unequivocally hold that a challenge to the amount of the tax liability made in the form of an OIC-DATL by a taxpayer who has received a notice of deficiency is a challenge to the underlying tax liability. Because the Baltics already had their chance to challenge that liability, section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars them from challenging it again.
The Baltics also argue that sec. 301.6330-1(e)(3), QA-E9, Proced. Admin. Regs., grants discretion to IRS employees to consider challenges to liability despite sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) and ask us to review for abuse of discretion the decision by the settlement officer not to review their liability. We've already held that the Code itself limits the power of both the Commissioner and our Court to reconsider liability issues. Nichols v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-5. Here, the determination did not address the precluded issue of liability, and the Baltics' challenge amounts to nothing more than a roundabout effort to challenge what they're prevented from challenging on appeal.
That leaves only the settlement officer's refusal to wait until the IRS reviewed the OIC-DATL and completed its audit reconsideration (which, we should note, no one doubts is a form of challenge to their underlying tax liability). The Baltics contend that the Commissioner's refusal was itself an abuse of discretion. We have already rejected this argument when a taxpayer urged waiting for an audit reconsideration. Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-142. Adding a desire to wait for consideration of an OIC-DATL as well adds nothing to the argument: The settlement officer here was just heeding the exhortation of the applicable regulation to issue a notice of determination as expeditiously as possible. Sec. 301.6330-1(e)(3), QA-E9, Proced. Admin. Regs.
The purpose of a CDP hearing is to balance the government's requirement for effective tax administration with the taxpayer's concern that collection be minimally intrusive. By deciding to hold off on collection by levy but preserve the government's lien priority while other employees of the IRS considered the Baltic's OIC-DATL and various late-filed returns, the Commissioner exercised discretion in a completely reasonable way, and so
An order and decision in favor of respondent will be entered.
PROCEEDINGS DISPOSED OF UPON MEMORANDUM OPINIONS
T.C. Memo. Name
2007-300 Agbaniyaka, Benjamin O. and Linda L. 2007-296 Akers, Eileen G. 2007-333 Amarasinghe, Disamodha C. and Narlie 2007-333 Amarasinghe, Jeanne E. 2007-265 Anderson, James E. 2007-244 Arberg, Lee B. 2007-365 Awlachew, Hailu Yohannes 2007-278 Ballin, Valerie Wright, Administratrix 2007-295 Ballmer, Paul E. 2007-338 Barber, Diane M. 2007-344 Barber, Diane M. 2007-361 Bass, William R. and Betty O. 2007-375 Bedrosian, John C. and Judith D. 2007-376 Bedrosian, John C. and Judith D. 2007-355 Bennett, William and Cathy A. 2007-171 Bergamyer, Jeffry, Tax Matters Partner 2007-234 Billings, David Bruce 2007-364 Black, Frank H. and Maria C. 2007-184 Blake, Wayne D. 2007-323 Blosser, Judy Hedrick 2007-324 Boltinghouse, Michael Kevin 2007-240 Bond, Craig H. and Jennifer 2007-214 Boone, Esther R. 2007-253 Booth, John E. 2007-271 Burns, Sara J. 2007-274 Burton, Amber R. 2007-285 Burton, Amber R. 2007-331 Byers, Ronald E. 2007-301 Callahan, Daniel G., et al. 2007-301 Callahan, Mary E. 2007-260 Cameron, Stanley C. 2007-360 Capizzi, Anthony J. and Mary Ann 2007-178 Chamberlain, Steve A. and Donna Wood Chamberlain 2007-314 Charpentier, Paul J. 2007-172 Clark, Richard L. 2007-263 Coleman, Lester Ronald 2007-222 Colorado Mufflers Unlimited, Inc. 2007-215 Cooper, David S. 2007-294 Cornwell, Michael D. 2007-283 Cotler, Richard S. 2007-275 Cotten, Rex E. 2007-266 Creamer, M. Kenneth 2007-368 Creese, Shannon R. 2007-289 Curr-Spec Partners, LP, Curr-Spec Managers, LLC, Tax Matters Partner 2007-348 Cutler, Charles R. 2007-201 Davis, Jeffrey W., Trustee 2007-201 Davis, Laura K, et al. 2007-280 Davis, Michael R. 2007-360 DeAngelis, Vincent and Jeanette 2007-218 Deerbrook Construction, Inc., Tax Matters Partner 2007-362 Deese, Bonnie W., Estate, Gladys Deese, Personal Representative 2007-210 Demetree, David A. and Deborah 2007-317 Diaz, Gabino 2007-248 Dietsche, Paul B. 2007-250 Dietsche, Paul B. 2007-304 Diffee, Alfred A., Jr., and Norma J. 2007-236 Dodge, Michael C. 2007-360 Domingo, Rodolfo and Bernadette 2007-230 Dominguez, Jose R. 2007-326 Dowell, Susan Kay 2007-291 Downing, Richard M. 2007-279 Drake, Robert E., Jr. 2007-287 Drake, Robert E., Jr. 2007-170 Dubois-Matthews, Danielle N. 2007-229 Dunne, Craig M. and Jennifer C. 2007-360 Durante, Keith and Kathleen 2007-282 Eckersley, Norman C. and Rosemary J. 2007-281 Elder, Richard Edwin and Eva Ruth 2007-321 Elliott, Paula J. 2007-207 Ellis, Royce A. 2007-219 Evans, Glenn M. 2007-252 Everett, Miranda E. 2007-350 Eyler, Geoff and Audrey 2007-319 Fabre, Sherri 2007-369 Farah, J. Ramsay and Elizabeth 2007-237 Fransen, Richard 2007-371 Frese, Anthony J., Executor 2007-231 Garner, Angela L. 2007-342 Gazi, Mohammed Ali and Raees Iftekhar Gazi, Estate 2007-307 Giammatteo, Gary J. 2007-224 Gibson, Douglas A. 2007-202 Gillespie, Robert and Ines M., et al. 2007-299 Golden, Robert H. and Judith A. 2007-328 Gonce, Stacy Lee 2007-370 Gore, Sylvia, Estate 2007-318 Grant, Andrea 2007-196 Gravelie, Laura M. 2007-262 Green, John O. 2007-217 Green, Theodore Major and Jacqueline 2007-203 Grewe, Gunther, Ancillary Administrator, C.T.A. 2007-176 Grover, James 2007-246 Hamann, Thomas D. and Lynn A. 2007-238 Haney, Lee F., Sr., and Jean C., a.k.a. Jeanie Haney 2007-335 Hardie, Robin T. 2007-359 Hardwick, Robert K. and Cheryl 2007-378 Harper, Darrell Joe 2007-239 Harris, James C. 2007-286 Hawkins, Cecil R. and Carol L. 2007-182 Hicks, Kimberly A., Estate 2007-197 Hicks, Robert S. 2007-235 Hollen, Michael C. and Joan L. 2007-175 Holloway, Wendell Ray 2007-313 Howard, Wayne T. 2007-204 Howell, Ralph 2007-171 Hughes, Stephen, Tax Matters Partner 2007-186 Hulse, Scott E. and Ellen J. 2007-302 Huit, Stuart 2007-294 Iker, Hilary J. 2007-373 Jackson, Kathleen 2007-201 JLD Asset Management Co. 2007-201 JLD Asset Management Trust 2007-249 Jones, Uriah Vincent 2007-255 Joss, Richard C. 2007-292 Joubert, Hubert 2007-219 Juell, Rhonda K., a.k.a. Rhonda K. Juell-Podlak 2007-192 Jumaa, Said 2007-309 Keating, Nora E. 2007-353 Kemper, Jennifer J. 2007-190 Key, Kevin and Kathryn A. 2007-182 Key Trust Co. of Ohio, N.A. Administrator 2007-223 Kim, Tae M. and Young J. 2007-276 Kirch, Marc 2007-325 Klein, Carl 2007-340 Knudsen, Dennis L. and Margaret J. 2007-343 Kopty, Ramzy M. and Lena 2007-173 Kosinski, Timothy and Barbara 2007-179 Kunze, Dan R. and Ann P. 2007-265 Latos, Cheryl J. 2007-371 Lee, Kwang, Estate 2007-345 Lemon, Zellard and Cheryl D. 2007-243 Lindstrom, Gregory Alan 2007-293 Lippitz, Charles A., Estate, Michael Lippitz, Administator 2007-293 Lippitz, Rhita S. 2007-354 M W Builders, Inc. 2007-311 Madden, Gary Dean and Teri Colleen 2007-233 Mahoney, Don 2007-332 Mandeville, Charles 2007-205 McDermott, W. Brian 2007-358 McDonald, David C. 2007-334 Medkiff, Michael L. 2007-193 Menendez, Carlos R. and Maria L. 2007-354 Midwest Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 2007-354 Midwest Mechanical Contractors of New Jersey, Inc. 2007-208 Miles, Corrie 2007-270 Mills, Stephanie K. 2007-372 Minton, Linda K. 2007-354 MMC Corp. 2007-349 Montalbano, Carmelo 2007-200 Moore, Kevin M. 2007-303 Mootz, Wayne Allen 2007-187 Nevins, Kelly A. 2007-245 Newcomb, Matthew G. 2007-264 Newton, Nicholas D. 2007-277 Nobles, Stacy L. 2007-306 Nolan, David Brian 2007-257 Novitsky, Mark A. 2007-226 Oria, Alex and Tonja 2007-183 Oswandel, Roy W. and Sharon P. 2007-357 Owens, Richard L., Jr. 2007-354 Pahor Air Conditioning, Inc. 2007-341 Pearson, Creed J. 2007-254 Petaluma FX Partners, LLC 2007-310 Peter D. Dahlin, Attorney at Law, P. S. 2007-370 Powell, Pamela, Personal Representative 2007-241 Prater, Bobby J. 2007-308 Prentiss, Meghan A. 2007-244 Quinn, Melissa A. 2007-346 Ramirez, Juan 2007-347 Ramirez, Juan and Esther 2007-329 Ranson, Jay D. 2007-367 Rector, Concetta H., Estate, John M. Rector II, Co-Executor and Co-Trustee 2007-273 Reeves, Daniel L. 2007-206 Rhodes, Alex B., Jr. 2007-171 River City Ranches 1985-2, J.V. 2007-171 River City Ranches #2, J.V. 2007-171 River City Ranches #3, J.V. 2007-171 River City Ranches #5, J.V. 2007-171 River City Ranches #1, Ltd. 2007-171 River City Ranches #2, Ltd. 2007-171 River City Ranches #3, Ltd. 2007-171 River City Ranches #4, Ltd. 2007-171 River City Ranches #5, Ltd. 2007-171 River City Ranches #6, Ltd. 2007-171 River City Ranches No. 4, Ltd. 2007-202 Robert E. Gillespie Asset Management Trust 2007-212 Robinson, Kenneth E. 2007-356 Role, Dale P. 2007-177 Rozzanno, Michael J., Jr., and Rose Marie 2007-228 Rue, Rolland and Clara Rose 2007-261 Salmassi, Mitra H. 2007-312 Samuel, David L. 2007-180 Sarchett, Toni L. 2007-288 Savage, Carol A. 2007-297 Schlosser, Cynthia Ann 2007-298 Schlosser, James Kerr 2007-220 Schmick, Judith E. 2007-213 Schneider, Robert P. 2007-227 Schwendeman, Charles Roy and Cindy L. 2007-189 Seaman, Barbara E. 2007-199 Self, Corky J. 2007-352 Seman, Edward C, Jr. 2007-339 Sentinel Advisors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner 2007-195 Shaw, Jennifer C. 2007-309 Shearer, Richard L. 2007-198 Sheid, Robert W. and Elizabeth D. Coleman-Sheid 2007-316 Silverman, Marvin 2007-363 Sita, Joseph M. and Marjorie 2007-221 Smith, Craig I. and Mary Lou 2007-368 Smith, J. Zane 2007-368 Smith, Joel Ranee and LaRhea 2007-368 Smith, Rhett Ranee and Alice Avila, et al. 2007-267 Smith, Rick E. 2007-232 Snyder, Harry 2007-339 Sterling Trading Opportunities, LLC 2007-322 Stevens, Patrick D. 2007-330 Stevens, Patrick D. 2007-251 Stevens, Shane 2007-377 Stone Canyon Investments, LLC, Tax Matters Partner 2007-377 Stone Canyon Partners, JCB 2007-216 Stone, Joshua A. 2007-185 Sundin, Duane R. 2007-191 Sundin, Duane R. 2007-337 Swanson, Joshua D. 2007-320 Tarter, Robert L. and Brenda J. 2007-218 Terrene Investments, Ltd. 2007-268 Teske, Caprice M., a.k.a. Caprice M. Stevenson 2007-284 Teske, Christopher M. 2007-258 Teske, Christopher M. and Caprice M. 2007-247 Teuscher, Robert R. and Barbara A. 2007-269 Thomas, Yvonne 2007-327 Thompson, Gregory Eugene 2007-174 Thompson, Ronald Z. 2007-336 Ticinovich, Don M. 2007-339 Topaz Trading, LLC 2007-256 Tudor, Laura E. 2007-188 Tyson Foods, Inc. Subs. 2007-305 Universal Marketing, Inc. 2007-181 Upchurch, Jack A. 2007-360 V.R. DeAngelis, M.D.P.C. R.T. Domingo, M.D.P.C. 2007-360 V.R. DeAngelis, M.D.P.C., Tax Matters Partner 2007-290 Vaitonis, Richard A. 2007-254 Vanderbeek, Ronald Scott, a Partner Other Than the Tax Matters Partner 2007-272 Vitamin Village, Inc. 2007-209 Vogt, Raymond E., Jr. 2007-366 Wanchek, James G. and Elaine A. 2007-374 Ward, Marc and Sherri 2007-194 Westby, Ragnhild Anne 2007-211 Western Management, Inc. 2007-259 Wipperfurth, Glenda M. 2007-315 Wolcott, Stanley C. 2007-225 Wood, James Benjamin, III 2007-278 Wright, Betty J., Deceased 2007-278 Wright, Charles Whittaker, Estate 2007-203 Zlotowski, Gertrude, Estate