- 3 -
respondent’s Appeals Office reduced petitioners’ net income to
$912, or $1,002 less than that reflected on petitioners’
financial statement that was submitted to respondent.
Petitioners’ financial statement and respondent’s Appeals Office
adjustments reflected petitioners’ total monthly income and
expenses as follows:
Monthly Amounts
As Reflected As Adjusted
by Petitioners by Respondent
Income:
Salaries - Roy Eliason $ 780 $ 780
Salaries - Margaret Eliason 2,950 2,950
Pension - Roy Eliason 1,048 1,048
Pension - Margaret Eliason 180 180
Total Income $4,958 $4,958
Expenses:
National Standard Expenses $ 830 $ 957
Housing and Utilities 1,365 1,365
Transportation 204 291
Health Care 110 110
Taxes (Income and FICA) 520 1,308
Life Insurance 15 15
Total Expenses $3,044 $4,046
Net Income $1,914 $ 912
On May 31, 2000, in connection with petitioners’ collection
hearing, petitioner participated in a telephone conference with
respondent’s Appeals Office. During the telephone conference,
based on the $912 difference between petitioners’ monthly income
and expenses as reflected in the above calculations, as adjusted
by respondent, respondent’s Appeals Office proposed that
petitioners make monthly payments to respondent of $912.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011