- 14 -
the subsequently claimed $352 per month. See id. sec.
5.15.1.3(8)(a), at 17,655 (“A taxpayer is required to provide
evidence and justification for claimed expenses, except National
Standards.”). On these premises, the Court finds respondent’s
computations to be reasonable and finds no abuse of discretion by
respondent. Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129.
With respect to petitioner’s contention that respondent
provided no independent review before rejecting petitioner’s
third amended offer in compromise, there was also no abuse of
discretion. Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, respondent did
have an independent reviewer, the Appeals team manager, review
the offer in compromise. This review occurred after the revenue
officer’s verification and the Appeals officer’s analysis and
recommendations. Petitioner was given the one hearing to which
he was entitled under section 6330(b)(2), where he was
represented by counsel. Petitioner’s contention is rejected.
In sum, petitioner’s third amended offer in compromise was
considered in detail. Respondent followed standard guidelines on
the calculation of petitioner’s monthly disposable income, giving
due consideration to each of the points raised by petitioner.
The record shows that respondent properly considered and
addressed the statutory criteria in analyzing petitioner’s third
amended offer in compromise. Ultimately, respondent concluded
that such offer did not fairly represent petitioner’s ability to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011