- 12 -
Appeals Office failed to properly consider their proposed offer
in compromise. We review respondent’s action for abuse of
discretion, on the basis of the arguments and information
available to the Appeals officer when the discretion was
exercised. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 610.
The Appeals officer reviewed the financial information
provided to him by petitioners and determined that he was unable
to accept petitioners’ offer in compromise. Specifically, the
Appeals officer’s determination was predicated on a financial
analysis of petitioners’ monthly income and expenses, assets, and
ability to pay, based on data provided by petitioners on Form
433-A. Petitioners offered to pay $8,026 on a total liability
that as of March 24, 2003, was in excess of $21,000. Respondent
concluded that the net realizable equity in petitioners’ assets
was considerably greater than the amount offered in compromise.
See Schenkel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-37.
Based on financial information petitioners provided,
respondent rejected their offer in compromise. We find this
action to be a reasonable exercise of discretion by respondent in
administering the offer in compromise program.
E. Conclusion
There is no basis in the record for the Court to conclude
that respondent abused his discretion with respect to any of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011