- 14 -
and a modest home specially equipped to accommodate his
disability, and who is unable to borrow against his home because
of his disability. See sec. 301.7122-1(c)(3)(iii), Examples (1),
(2), and (3), Proced. & Admin. Regs. None of these examples
bears any resemblance to this case, but instead all “describe
more dire circumstances”. Speltz v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 782,
786 (8th Cir. 2006), affg. 124 T.C. 165 (2005); see also Barnes
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150. Nevertheless, we will
address petitioner’s arguments.
1. Discussion of Special Circumstances in the Notice
of Determination
Petitioner argues that Ms. Cochran failed “to follow proper
procedure by [not] discussing Petitioner’s special circumstances,
what equity was considered in relation to his special
circumstances, and how the special circumstances affected her
determination of his ability to pay.” Petitioner infers that,
because the notice of determination did not discuss the special
circumstances in detail, Ms. Cochran failed to adequately take
petitioner’s circumstances into consideration.
This Court does not believe that Appeals must specifically
list in the notice of determination every single fact it
considers in arriving at a determination. See Barnes v.
Commissioner, supra. This is especially true in a case such as
this, where petitioner provided Ms. Cochran with multiple letters
and hundreds of pages of exhibits. Ms. Cochran considered all of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011