- 12 - question regarding ownership of real estate in which an equity interest of nearly $40,000 appeared to exist. As a result, the settlement officer concluded that petitioners’ offer in compromise was not acceptable. Although petitioners continue to assert that the real estate belongs to petitioner’s mother, petitioners failed to provide to respondent’s settlement officer certain requested information in support of this assertion. For example, petitioners failed to provide information relating to the proceeds of the Nashville house that petitioners sold, information that is particularly significant because of the $10,532.33 deposit into petitioner’s mother’s bank account on the same day that the cashier’s check used for part of the downpayment on the real estate was purchased. Moreover, the information petitioners provided to the settlement officer showed that the real estate was originally titled in petitioners’ names, that petitioners transferred title for no consideration, that petitioners lived there, and that petitioners paid the property taxes and mortgage payments. Generally, when challenging a levy action, taxpayers bear the responsibility of providing relevant information. Rule 142(a). The information petitioners provided to the settlement officer was insufficient to resolve the question regarding ownership of the real estate. We find no abuse ofPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011