- 6 -
Petitioners have not argued that any portion of their outstanding
tax liability is uncollectible.
Because petitioners do not dispute the underlying tax
liability, we review respondent’s determination for an abuse of
discretion. Sec. 6330(d); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176,
181-182 (2000).
We find that respondent’s rejection of petitioners’ proposed
installment agreement was not an abuse of discretion.
Respondent’s determination was based on the information provided
by petitioners to the Appeals officer which reflected their
current financial condition. See Crisan v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-318; Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129.
The Appeals officer reasonably could have determined, on the
basis of petitioners’ submitted income and expense information,
that petitioners’ proposed installment payment of $50 per month
should have been rejected. We note that such a payment would
have been far from adequate to satisfy petitioners’ tax liability
within the collection periods of limitation. See Willis v.
Commissioner, supra. Furthermore, contrary to petitioners’
assertions to the contrary, the fact that petitioners have
consistently underpaid their taxes since 1989, yet have refused
to adjust withholding or to begin making estimated tax payments,
is also relevant to the determination of the adequacy of their
offer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011