- 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