-6-
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000). In so doing, we do
not conduct an independent review of what would be an acceptable
offer in compromise. Van Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-346. We review only whether the Appeals officer’s refusal
to accept petitioners’ OIC was arbitrary, capricious, or without
sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112
T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
On the basis of the information considered by the Appeals
officer, we cannot conclude that rejection of petitioners’ OIC
was an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Van Vlaenderen v.
Commissioner, supra; Crisan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-318;
Willis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-302; O’Brien v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-290; Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-129. Petitioners’ OIC of $5,000 was not based on any
analysis. In contrast, in response to the OIC, the IRS provided
a detailed analysis computing petitioners’ net realizable equity.4
Furthermore, while petitioners made a general assertion that they
should be entitled to make installment payments, they did not
present any details as to this. Further, even if an installment
agreement were in effect pursuant to section 6159, such agreement
would not prevent the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien.
Sec. 301.6159-1(d)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
4 See Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. __ (2005) for a
detailed discussion of the regulations relating to OICs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011