Drina L. McCorkle - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          file any objection to respondent’s motion for summary judgment on           
          or before December 12, 2002.  On December 16, 2002, petitioner              
          filed a response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment                
          (response).                                                                 
          Discussion                                                                  
               Petitioner’s only argument is that respondent’s refusal of             
          the proposed installment plan constituted an abuse of discretion.           
          Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not                   
          properly in issue, we review respondent’s determination for an              
          abuse of discretion.  Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610               
          (2000); Black v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-307 (reviewing the           
          Commissioner’s determination regarding an installment agreement             
          proposed at a section 6330 hearing under an abuse of discretion             
          standard); Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129.                   
               One reason respondent did not accept the proposed                      
          installment plan was because petitioner was not in compliance               
          with her current filing and paying obligations.  See Internal               
          Revenue Manual, pt. 5.14.1.4.1 (July 1, 2002), pt. 5.14.9.3(5)              
          (Mar. 30, 2002), pt. 5.19.1.3.3.1(1) and (5) (Oct. 1, 2001), pt.            
          5.19.1.5.4.10(1)-(2) (Oct. 1, 2001).  In her response, petitioner           
          admits that as of the date of the notice of determination, May              
          10, 2002, she had not filed her 2001 return and had not fully               
          paid her tax liability for 2001.                                            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011