- 15 - amount of discretionary expenditures shown by the Form 433-A and the bank statements is unexplained and leaves the record ambiguous as regards petitioner’s basic living expenses or her ability to meet them. Similarly, the record contains no evidence of any illness, medical condition, or disability that would render petitioner incapable of earning a living or would exhaust all of her financial resources. Although on brief petitioner references uninsured medical expenses incurred in 2002, such uncorroborated information never raised in the administrative proceeding falls short of revealing any abuse of discretion. See Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002) (considering “only arguments, issues, and other matters that were raised at the collection hearing or otherwise brought to the attention of the Appeals Office”). Turning to petitioner’s assets, we note at the outset that no dispute between the parties exists as to whether the trust is reachable for collection of petitioner’s Federal tax liabilities. Further, this view would appear to accord with relevant authorities. State law determines the existence of property rights to which Federal tax consequences, such as a tax lien, may then attach. Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 512-514 (1960); Magavern v. United States, 550 F.2d 797, 800 (2d Cir. 1977). As this Court has recognized, the court in In rePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011