- 7 -
situation. Respondent’s calculation was based on a financial
analysis of petitioners’ monthly net income generated by Dr.
Castillo’s medical practice and real estate investments.
Respondent has the discretion to accept or reject an
installment agreement proposed by a taxpayer under section 6159.
Sec. 301.6159-1(b)(1)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Section 6159
requires respondent to enter into installment agreements in
certain circumstances not applicable to the facts before us. See
sec. 6159(c). Respondent’s rejection of the proposed installment
agreement on the grounds that it would not satisfy petitioners’
liability within the period of limitations on collection after
assessment contained in section 6502, plus allowable extensions,
is not an abuse of discretion. See McCorkle v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-34.
IV. Section 6330(c)(3)(C) Balancing Test
Petitioners argue that respondent failed to balance the
Government’s need for the efficient collection of taxes with the
concern of the “person”, i.e., petitioners in this case, that any
collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
Petitioners also assert that respondent’s reliance on 2
Administration, Internal Revenue Manual, sec. 5.14.1.4(6), at
17,508, was a violation of section 6330(c)(3)(C). We are
unpersuaded by these arguments.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011