Joseph G. Dostal - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
             allowances”, referred to in section 7122(c)(2), and failed               
             to determine, based upon the facts and circumstances of                  
             this case, whether it was appropriate to use those                       
                  For his last reason, petitioner argues that “the                    
             financial information clearly showed that the IRS’                       
             settlement demands would be an undue hardship on the                     
             taxpayer and his family, and basically force them into the               
             streets.”  In effect, petitioner is arguing that collection              
             of the full liability for tax years 2000 and 2001 would                  
             cause petitioner and his family economic hardship within                 
             the meaning of section 301.6343-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.                
             Thus, it appears that petitioner is relying on section                   
             301.7122-1(b)(3)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs., to support his              
             contention that respondent should have accepted his offer-               
             in-compromise.  Petitioner has identified no “compelling                 
             public policy or equity considerations”, applicable to his               
             tax liability for taxable years 2000 and 2001, that would                
             provide a basis to apply section 301.7122-1(b)(3)(ii),                   
             Proced. & Admin. Regs.                                                   
                  We disagree with each of petitioner’s points and, for               
             the reasons set out below, we find that the determination                
             to proceed with collection of petitioner’s tax for 2000                  
             and 2001 was not an abuse of respondent’s discretion.                    

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011