- 4 -
In the Appeals hearing, the Appeals officer requested, on
numerous occasions, that petitioners submit evidence that the
claimed tithe was a condition of Mr. Pixley’s employment.
Petitioners failed to respond to these requests. The Appeals
Office issued to petitioners a “Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330”,
dated March 14, 2002. In the notice of determination, the
Appeals Office rejected petitioners’ offer in compromise and
concluded that petitioners had the ability to fully pay their
1992 and 1993 tax liabilities. The notice of determination
stated that petitioners failed to establish that tithes were a
condition of Mr. Pixley’s employment and that, for purposes of
evaluating petitioners’ offer in compromise, tithing expenses
were disallowed in determining petitioners’ ability to pay.
After the notice of determination was issued, the Appeals
officer reconsidered petitioners’ offer in compromise and gave
them additional opportunities to submit evidence that the claimed
tithe was a condition of Mr. Pixley’s employment. Petitioners
failed to submit this information, and the Appeals officer
ultimately sustained his rejection of petitioners’ offer.
Discussion
In this case, we are called upon to address for the first
time, in the context of an offer in compromise, the treatment of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011