Mark Fowler and Joylyn Souter-Fowler - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
               Under the various payment options, respondent would be able            
          to file Federal tax liens to protect his interests until such               
          time as the liability is satisfied.  Accordingly, respondent’s              
          interest would be protected through the liens while respondent              
          received monthly payments.  The result of the Appeals officer’s             
          financial analysis, however, was to deny petitioners’ offers in             
          compromise.  To use the national guidelines rather than actual              
          figures in this instance was arbitrary, capricious, and without a           
          sound basis in fact.  Petitioners have stated that they are still           
          willing to compromise their tax liabilities for $2,400, but                 
          through monthly payments rather than a lump-sum payment.6                   
               Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances of this                
          case, we hold that respondent abused his discretion in denying              
          petitioners’ offer to compromise their tax liabilities for                  

          made in monthly payments over the life of the collection statute.           
          The deferred plan could result in a longer payment period than 24           
               6 Petitioners and respondent agreed on the amount of the               
          compromise.  The only disagreement here is the method of payment.           
          Based on the financial information submitted by petitioners, a              
          payment plan is a reasonable option.                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011