- 9 -
Appeals officer at the administrative hearing. Furthermore, the
Appeals officer’s offer to suspend collection activities for one
year demonstrates respondent’s willingness to give petitioners
more time to reduce their expenses, including those incurred
after rejection of the first settlement offer.
Petitioners attached a number of exhibits to their Motion,
most of which were unavailable to the Appeals officer at the time
of the hearing, to support their argument that respondent’s
determination was an abuse of discretion. Petitioners included a
Schedule C for 2002 reflecting monthly income of $2,605, a
junkyard’s appraisal of the Ford Thunderbird, and documentation
of petitioners’ medical problems. However, it is self-evident
that the Appeals officer may not be held to have committed an
abuse of discretion where information that might have supported
petitioners’ position was not forthcoming at the time of the
administrative hearing. In any event, we are unable to conclude
that the production of such additional information at the time of
the hearing might have led to a different result. See Van
Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-346.
We have reviewed the financial information which the record
reveals was available to the Appeals officer at the time of the
administrative hearing, and we conclude that respondent’s
rejection of the $2,000 offer in compromise was not arbitrary.
Respondent’s refusal of the de minimis offer was justified by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011