- 4 -
As a basis for the OIC, petitioners submitted personal
financial information that showed monthly expenses exceeding
monthly income by $1,170. Petitioners’ claimed $2,895 housing
expense and $500 insurance expense accounted for a large portion
of the deficit. Petitioners made no reference to the Ford
Thunderbird. The Appeals officer questioned the “arm’s length
nature” of the automobile’s transfer and concluded that the asset
belonged in the offer calculation. Petitioners do not dispute
this conclusion.
Respondent rejected petitioners’ OIC on March 13, 2003.
Respondent followed prescribed guidelines to determine
petitioners’ collection potential. See 1 Administration,
Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec. 5.8.5.5., at 16,339. The
Appeals officer adjusted petitioners’ claimed housing and life
insurance expenses to $789 and $200, respectively. The Appeals
officer used monthly income of $4,860, consisting of $3,411
reflected on petitioners’ 2001 Schedule C, Profit or Loss From
Business, and $1,449 of Social Security income, less national
standard expenses of $4,148 to arrive at net monthly income of
$712. Respondent fixed the present value of petitioners’ net
income for 48 months at $34,176. Petitioners argue that this
figure is too high and claim that their income will decline in
future years because of Mr. Alaniz’s advanced age and
“deteriorating health.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011