Donald G. and Claudia A. Willis - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          enter into installment agreements to pay specific tax periods in            
          full and to have other tax periods designated as CNC.                       
          2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec. 5.14.2.2,             
          at 17,529 (effective Mar. 30, 2002).  Respondent’s new policy,              
          however, still requires that taxpayers borrow upon or liquidate             
          current assets.  2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH),           
          sec. 5.14.2.2(1), at 17,529 (effective Mar. 30, 2002).  At trial,           
          petitioners’ counsel argued that this case was not about abuse of           
          discretion by an individual settlement officer, but rather about            
          an “institutional abuse of discretion” in the application of the            
          policy that respondent used when considering petitioners’                   
          proposed installment agreement.  Petitioners claim respondent               
          should have treated the cumulative liability as consisting of               
          separate liabilities for each year and should have classified               
          some years as CNC while allowing petitioners an installment                 
          agreement for the liabilities for other years.                              
               The settlement officer properly applied the policies                   
          applicable when considering petitioners’ request for an                     
          installment agreement, and we find no abuse of discretion in his            
          action.  Further, particularly in light of the unresolved                   
          question relating to ownership of the real estate, petitioners              
          have failed to establish that they would qualify for treatment              
          under respondent’s new policy.  We find no abuse of discretion in           








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011