- 7 -
their OIC. In the letter, Settlement Officer Brandon stated
that, based on the data petitioners submitted, it appeared that
petitioners could make monthly payments in the amount of $439 and
could therefore pay their liability in full within the limitation
period. Settlement Officer Brandon also offered petitioners an
installment agreement as a collection alternative (Installment
Agreement). The Installment Agreement provided for the payment
of $439 per month for 13 months and $604 per month thereafter,5
until the liability was paid in full.
On January 3, 2004, petitioners sent, via facsimile, a
letter to respondent that we interpreted as petitioners’
rejection of the Installment Agreement proposed by Settlement
Officer Brandon. The issue now before us, therefore, is whether
Settlement Officer Brandon abused his discretion in rejecting
petitioners’ OIC and allowing collection by levy action to
proceed.
Discussion
Before a levy may be made on any property or right to
property, a taxpayer is entitled to a fair hearing before an
impartial officer of the Appeals Office. Secs. 6330(a) and (b),
and 6331(d). If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he may raise at
that hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the
5 Petitioners are expected to have satisfied certain medical
expenses after 13 months.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011