- 5 -
fail to take into consideration additional medical expenses (that
were not disclosed to respondent’s Appeals Office in connection
with petitioners’ collection hearing) and the possibility of a
future reduction in petitioners’ income; and (3) to proceed with
collection by way of levy.
Based on the above stated reasons, in an amended petition,
petitioners ask this Court for “a reduction in past due taxes.”
OPINION
Under section 6330(d)(1), where a taxpayer’s underlying tax
liability is not at issue, we generally review a determination of
respondent’s Appeals Office concerning collection for an abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609-610 (2000).
Under that standard of review, we generally consider only matters
that were raised by the taxpayer or otherwise brought to the
attention of respondent’s Appeals Office at or in connection with
the Appeals Office hearing. Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
488, 493 (2002).
Based on the limited information available to respondent’s
Appeals Office, the payment plan of $912 per month proposed by
respondent’s Appeals Office to petitioners in connection with
petitioners’ collection hearing did not constitute an abuse of
discretion. The proposed payment plan of $912 per month was
based on a financial analysis performed by respondent’s Appeals
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011