- 12 - Although the present case involves a potential installment payment agreement and not an offer in compromise, we think the deference shown in Rodriguez v. Commissioner, supra, to the Commissioner’s collection procedures applies equally to the present case. Specifically, we do not think it is an abuse of discretion for the Commissioner to decline to offer an installment payment agreement to a taxpayer if the taxpayer continues to dispute the underlying liability.5 After all, an installment payment agreement contemplates payment of an amount acknowledged as owed. See Internal Revenue Manual 5.19.1.5.4.1; Form 433-D, Installment Agreement; see also sec. 6159; sec. 301.6159-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. In sum, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the proposed levy action is inappropriate, that another collection alternative is more appropriate, or that some other relevant issue adversely affects respondent’s proposed collection action. Respondent’s determination to proceed by levy with the collection of petitioners’ outstanding liabilities for 1992 and 1993 was not an abuse of discretion. 5 Indeed, it is hard to imagine that a taxpayer would even want to enter into an installment payment agreement if the taxpayer not only disputed the underlying liability but wished to take that dispute to court.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011