- 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
5(...continued)
made in monthly payments over the life of the collection statute.
The deferred plan could result in a longer payment period than 24
months.
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