Garnett E. Thorpe - Page 15

                                       - 14 -                                         
          to consider a collection alternative when a taxpayer is not                 
          current with his income tax filings.  Rodriguez v. Commissioner,            
          T.C. Memo. 2003-153; Ashley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-286.           
          At the CDP hearing, the Appeals officer granted petitioner a                
          reasonable amount of time to become current with his income tax             
          filings, but petitioner did not do so.  The Appeals officer did             
          not abuse his discretion in rejecting petitioner’s collection               
          alternative proposals.                                                      
          D.  Remand of Petitioner’s Case to Appeals Office                           
               Where a taxpayer is not afforded a proper opportunity for a            
          hearing under section 6330, the Court may remand the case to the            
          Appeals Office to hold a hearing if we “believe that it is either           
          necessary or productive”.  Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.               
          183, 189 (2001); Day v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-30.                   
               Since we hold that petitioner filed a valid election for               
          relief under section 6015(c), the Appeals officer was obligated             
          to consider this spousal defense at the CDP hearing under section           
          6330(c)(2)(A)(i).  Petitioner and Mrs. Thorpe were legally                  
          separated at the time the election was filed and divorced at the            
          time of the CDP hearing, and we believe it is necessary and                 
          likely to be productive for us to remand this case to the Appeals           
          Office to determine the correct allocation of the tax liability             
          between petitioner and Mrs. Thorpe under section 6015(c) and (d).           

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011