- 18 -
2. Respondent Did Not Base His Determination on
Petitioner’s Ability To Pay
Petitioner is disabled and has a limited life expectancy.
Respondent determined to leave the nominee liens in place when
Mr. Blais indicated that in a best case scenario resolution of
petitioner’s case for a figure of more than $80,000 was
unreasonable. Respondent made this determination regarding the
nominee liens even though Mr. Blais specifically noted--before
and after the hearing--that settlement for less than $80,000 was
the best option.
Respondent’s determination was not based on a financial
analysis of petitioner’s income, assets, and allowable expenses
and his ability to pay. See Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-129. Respondent did not give due consideration to
collection alternatives. See id.
3. Conclusion
For the reasons stated supra, we conclude that the
determination to leave the nominee liens in place for the years
in issue was an abuse of discretion.11 In reaching all of our
11 As we hold that respondent abused his discretion in
determining that the OIC was not an acceptable collection
alternative, we need not reach the issue of whether petitioner
has standing to challenge the filing of the nominee liens. We
note that the decision of the District Court in Skrizowski v.
Commissioner, 292 F. Supp.2d 277 (D.N.H. 2003), regarding the
nominee liens and the responsible person penalty, is not a final
decision (it is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit). See Johnston v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011