- 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