- 19 -
verification that the requirements of applicable law and
administrative procedures have been met, and “whether any
proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient
collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person
that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.”
Sec. 6330(c)(3).
Petitioners raise issues only as to collection alternatives,
in that they dispute respondent’s rejection of another
installment agreement and rejection of an offer-in-compromise.
We review the determination for an abuse of discretion because
the underlying tax liability is not at issue. Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001); Nicklaus v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 117, 120 (2001).
Respondent’s rejection of another installment agreement for
petitioners was not an abuse of discretion. Installment
agreements are based upon the taxpayer’s current financial
condition. See 2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH),
sec. 5.19.1.5.4.1, at 18,299-65. Respondent’s determination was
based on information petitioners provided to Ms. Vuicich. See
Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129. At the section
6330 hearing, Ms. Vuicich requested from Mr. Orum additional
financial information by August 9, 2002, for the Appeals Office
to consider Mr. Orum’s request for another installment agreement.
Petitioners failed to timely respond to Ms. Vuicich’s request.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011