Actor Charlie Sheen is now on the same playing field as any taxpayer in a similar financial situation, which wasn’t the case when he had his first hearing, according to his counsel, Steven L. Jager.
Jager of Fineman West & Co. and Laura Mullin of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel signed two stipulated decisions, according to an August 17 status report, agreeing to a $3.3 million offer in compromise and putting an end to Sheen’s Tax Court cases, both titled Sheen v. Commissioner.
Sheen’s first collection due process hearing, for the 2015 tax year, lasted 34 calendar days, and the settlement officer refused to grant a continuance once Sheen obtained representation at the end of the 34-day period, according to an August 5 status report.
Jager told Tax Notes that 34 days would be an extraordinarily short period for a CDP hearing for a taxpayer with a relatively simple financial situation. A second CDP hearing regarding Sheen’s 2017 and 2018 tax years began in January 2020, and Sheen proposed an OIC covering all three tax years. The Los Angeles area director for the IRS Independent Office of Appeals ultimately rejected the OIC on October 7, 2021, without explaining his reasoning or offering an opportunity for Sheen to address his concerns.
In October 2021 the IRS filed a motion for summary judgment in the first Tax Court case, Dkt. No. 14774-18. Sheen filed a second Tax Court petition, Dkt. No. 29680-21, in November 2021.
The second petition requested the court to consider the consolidation of the two cases. It also asked the Tax Court to remand the two CDP cases to an Appeals office in a geographic location outside the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles area director.
The Tax Court remanded both cases in a January 24 order, and the respective counsels chose the Dallas area director.
Sheen also filed his response to the IRS’s summary judgment motion on January 1, noting that Form 433-A, “Collection Information Statement,” appeared to be missing from the administrative record. Jager said the absence of the document would have brought into question its accuracy and completeness.
Tax Court Judge Mark V. Holmes denied summary judgment as moot on August 18, concurrent with the filing of the stipulated decision in Dkt. No. 14774-18 and proposed stipulated decision in Dkt. No. 29680-21.