- 7 -
he claims that MBNA agreed to accept in settlement of the
dispute. Petitioner further claims that when NCO contacted him
with respect to the same debt, he informed NCO that MBNA agreed
to accept $6,000 in settlement of the dispute, at which time
petitioner made full payment of the $6,000 to NCO. Therefore, in
petitioner’s view, he did not realize income from the
cancellation of the $30,000 that NCO claimed was owed by
petitioner.
On the basis of the evidence in the record, however, we are
not persuaded that petitioner did not receive income from the
cancellation of indebtedness. We do not doubt that petitioner
communicated with MBNA about his account or that petitioner paid
NCO $6,000 with respect to his MBNA account. Petitioner,
however, did not present any documentary evidence, such as
correspondence to or from MBNA, notes of his discussions with
MBNA, or a copy of the alleged fraudulent convenience check,
demonstrating that NCO accepted his $6,000 payment as a
settlement of his dispute with MBNA in the amount of $30,000.
Indeed, NCO’s “Fact Sheet” indicates that there was a “purchase
dispute” with respect to petitioner’s MBNA account, but there is
nothing in the record to explain the nature or the amount of the
“purchase dispute”. Rather, the entirety of the record indicates
that NCO canceled petitioner’s debt in the amount of $30,000
because of petitioner’s inability to readily pay the outstanding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011