Robert M. Galvin and Christine Galvin - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          offered.  2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec.             
          5.8.1.3.5, at 16,256.                                                       
               Mr. Kane properly applied these procedures to arrive at the            
          proposal offered to petitioners.  Petitioners’ challenges to the            
          appropriateness of the collection action were based upon Mr.                
          Galvin’s poor health and the possibility that he would be unable            
          to continue to work.  Mr. Kane took these factors, as well as the           
          age of the tax liabilities, into consideration in making                    
          respondent’s proposal.                                                      
               Petitioners have not presented any evidence or persuasive              
          arguments to convince us that respondent abused his discretion.             
          See Black v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-307.  As a result, we            
          hold the issuance of the notice of determination was not an abuse           
          of respondent’s discretion and respondent may proceed with                  
          collection.                                                                 
               In reaching our holding herein, we have considered all                 
          arguments made, and to the extent not mentioned above, we                   
          conclude them to be moot, irrelevant, or without merit.                     
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              
                                                       Decision will be               
                                                  entered for respondent.             











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  

Last modified: May 25, 2011