Carol A. Black and William R. Adams - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
                    existence or amount of the underlying tax                         
                    liability for any tax period if the person did not                
                    receive any statutory notice of deficiency for                    
                    such tax liability or did not otherwise have an                   
                    opportunity to dispute such tax liability.                        
          With respect to petitioners’ proposed installment agreement, we             
          review the settlement officer’s determination for abuse of                  
          discretion.  Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001);            
          Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120 (2001).  To the                 
          extent that petitioners’ underlying liability is an issue, we               
          review the Appeals officer’s determination de novo.  Landry v.              
          Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001).                                       
               Petitioners presented neither evidence nor argument that               
          would persuade us that an installment agreement was an                      
          appropriate alternative to enforced collection.  A fortiori, they           
          have not presented any evidence or persuasive argument that the             
          settlement officer abused his discretion in refusing to accept an           
          installment agreement.  Compare Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C.              
          Memo. 2002-129, in which we considered in detail the financial              
          information submitted to the settlement officer and concluded               
          that there was no abuse of discretion when the settlement officer           
          declined an installment agreement sought by the taxpayers.                  
               Petitioners presented extensive testimony concerning Adams’s           
          physical limitations due to diabetes.  Petitioners’                         
          delinquencies, however, continued over a period of years that               
          cannot be excused by reference to Adams’s illness.  Petitioners’            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011