- 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