- 11 -
Commissioner, supra. Petitioner informed respondent's Appeals
officer that he could not pay off the liability.
The Court notes that respondent also considered the fact
that petitioner had defaulted on a prior installment agreement as
an additional reason to proceed with collection. Mrs. Nicol
testified that they did not default on the installment agreement
and that they indicated that their refunds for tax years 1998 and
2000 would be applied to satisfy the liabilities. However, the
Nicols admitted in their petition that they were unable to make
consistent payments under the installment agreement. See Wells
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-234 (taxpayer's default on
installment agreement was an additional reason to proceed with
collection). At trial, petitioner did not present evidence or
make any arguments that would persuade the Court that an
installment agreement was an appropriate alternative to enforced
collection.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the proposed levy
action is inappropriate, another collection alternative is more
appropriate, or some other relevant issue adversely affects
respondent's proposed collection activity. The Court therefore
concludes that respondent's determination to proceed by levy with
the collection of petitioner's income tax liability was not an
abuse of discretion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011