William G. Wells - Page 6

                                                - 6 -                                                   
                  reinstituted.  At your due process hearing your                                       
                  representative discussed disposition of the liabilities                               
                  through full payment or the possibility of making an                                  
                  Offer-in-Compromise.  However, your representative was                                
                  unable to provide a comprehensive accounting of your                                  
                  assets so that a determination might be made with                                     
                  regard to the necessity of full payment or the                                        
                  feasibility of an offer (nothing was presented upon                                   
                  which a legal sufficiency determination could be                                      
                  based), nor was an Offer-in-Compromise presented.  The                                
                  renegotiation and reinstatement of your installment                                   
                  agreement is not possible because of the pending                                      
                  assessments; your previous default; and, the amount of                                
                  the required payments considering all unpaid balance of                               
                  assessments will not pay the debt within the statute.                                 
                                               OPINION                                                  
                  At trial, petitioner stated the only relief he is seeking is                          
            a remand to the Appeals Office for further proceedings.3  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).                                
                  Petitioner testified that he suffered from a stroke in 1995                           
            and hearing loss shortly thereafter.  As of April 1999,                                     
            petitioner began using hearing aids.  By October 1999, petitioner                           
            felt the hearing aids were functioning well for him.                                        
                  In October 1999, petitioner was evaluated by Eugene H.                                
            Freed, M.D.4  Dr. Freed was an Agreed Medical Examiner, a                                   




                  3  Petitioner’s underlying tax liability is not in issue.                             
                  4  Although the record is unclear, this examination appears                           
            to be part of petitioner’s litigation with Fujita Corp.                                     





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011