- 4 -
Installment Agreement on or about January 1, 2000. The
taxpayer made these monthly payments on a reasonably
regular basis until February 27, 2002.
Given the aggregate amount of the taxpayer’s liability
at the time the installment agreement was initiated,
her contention that the balance due was ‘never
decreasing’ is essentially correct ($1,200 paid per
year would do little more than pay the interest of the
aggregate liability). However, this would indicate
that the installment agreement itself was ‘faulty’ in
that the creator of the agreement should have set a
much greater monthly payment in order to liquidate the
aggregate liability within a reasonable time span.
This retrospective observation, however, in no way
addresses whether or not levy action is appropriate, as
the taxpayer has not expressed any interest in
modifying the terms of an installment agreement in
order to fully pay the remaining outstanding
liabilities.
On May 29, 2003, the Appeals Office issued the Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330, notifying petitioner of the determination to proceed
with collection of the outstanding liabilities for the 1992,
1993, 1995, and 1996 taxable years.
Discussion
This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination under section 6330. Sec. 6330(d).
Where, as here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is
not at issue,3 we review the determination for abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza
3 Indeed, it appears from respondent’s records that
petitioner signed a waiver of assessment with respect to the 1993
and 1995 taxable years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011