- 8 -
the realty by 20% leaves equity of $60,282. Also,
eliminating present value in its entirety because of
the dischargeability of the taxes still leaves net
realizable equity substantially in excess of the amount
owed.
Mr. Ashley might have been entitled to enter into an
installment agreement but for the fact that he is not
current in his filing obligations. [See IRM
5.14.1.4(4).] Mr. Ashley was given ample opportunity
to file the delinquent, and as he indicated to the
settlement officer, taxable returns (all since 1989)
but unfortunately, has not done so. He requested
assistance from the Internal Revenue Service in prepar-
ing the unfiled returns which, according to information
secured by the settlement officer, could not be of-
fered. Therefore, an installment agreement isn’t an
option for Mr. Ashley.
The settlement officer considered an offer in compro-
mise as an [sic] collection alternative. However,
there are several reasons why an offer is inappropri-
ate. As indicated above, Mr. Ashley’s equity in assets
far exceeds the amount owed which precludes acceptance
based on “doubt as to collectibility”. Nor has he
claimed or demonstrated that there are any special
circumstances which would warrant consideration of an
“Effective Tax Administration” offer. In any event,
the Service policy with respect to individuals who
submit offers is that they be current in filing all due
returns before their offers can be processed. [See IRM
5.8.3.3(2).] As noted above Mr. Ashley was not in
compliance with his filing responsibilities at the time
of his appeal nor has he become compliant in filing
since.
Mr. Ashley has not offered a viable collection alterna-
tive in his case. Nor has he availed himself to date
of the opportunity to file an original income tax
return for the subject year which he claims verbally
would reduce the amount of tax due. Further, Mr.
Ashley will not be available for a viable collection
alternative until such time that he becomes compliant
with his filing obligations. Therefore, the following
conclusions and determinations are made in this matter.
The sending of the Notice of Intent to Levy was proper
under the circumstances. Since no viable collection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011