- 13 -
submitted.8 We do not find that the settlement officer abused
her discretion in disallowing petitioners’ claimed expenses.
The settlement officer was entitled to rely on the standards
applicable to Milwaukee County. Petitioner husband admitted at
trial that both he and his wife lived and worked in Milwaukee
County. Petitioners did not introduce any evidence of any
meaningful ties to Ozaukee County, other than the relative
proximity of their residence. We cannot agree that the
settlement officer abused her discretion in relying on the
housing and utility standards applicable to Milwaukee County.
And, it was not an abuse of discretion for her to refuse to
accept what petitioners claimed to be their actual housing and
utility expenditures. The expenses claimed by petitioners
exceeded the applicable local standards for housing and
8Petitioners now propose additional amounts of medical
expenses, increasing their total to $726, as well as an increase
in the tax expenses allowed from $1,685 to $2,065. We decline to
discuss those additional amounts, since they were not raised
before the settlement officer and were not raised at trial. “It
is the responsibility of the taxpayer to raise all relevant
issues at the time of the pre-levy hearing.” H. Conf. Rept. 105-
599, at 266 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 755, 1020. In addition,
petitioners have submitted with their brief a revision of the
expenses used by the settlement officer which shows total
expenses of $7,071. Petitioners propose “a monthly payment of
$300 as a way of settling this case”. Again, this revision is
relevant, for purposes of our review, only to the extent it was
proposed to the settlement officer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011