- 6 -
Office of petitioners’ monthly income and expenses using, among
other things, the financial information provided by petitioners.
Moreover, based on the $10,000 in insurance proceeds that
petitioners received in 2000 (before respondent’s Appeals Office
made its determination), petitioners had the ability to pay a
significant portion of their outstanding income tax liabilities
for 1994 and 1995 (a total of $7,156, including interest to
October 1, 2001).
With regard to alleged financial hardship raised by
petitioners for the first time in an amended petition (namely,
additional medical expenses and the possibility of a future
reduction in income), because petitioners did not raise such
matter until the filing of their amended petition in January of
2001, it did not constitute an abuse of discretion for
respondent’s Appeals Office to fail to consider such matter in
making the determination to proceed with collection.1 See Magana
v. Commissioner, supra.
1 Generally, consideration by respondent of matters not
presented to respondent’s Appeals Office until after a collection
hearing and after the issuance by respondent’s Appeals Office of
its notice of determination would be within respondent’s
discretion under sec. 6330(d)(2) and would not be reviewable by
this Court. Sec. 6330(b)(2), (d)(2); H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at
266 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 1020; sec. 301.6330-1(h)(1)(2), Q&A-H1
and H2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011