- 20 -
which can be done only if current taxes are paid
while old tax debts are retired. Whether that
goal is best achieved by levy rather than by
allowing second chances is the sort of decision
committed to executive officials. * * *
As the court noted in the above case, a taxpayer’s failure
to keep current on his tax payments suggests that the
taxpayer had decided “to prefer consumption over meeting
[his] legal obligations.” Id.
Second, petitioner’s assertion that the Appeals
officer “summarily rejected” petitioner’s offer-in-
compromise is contradicted by the record. The stipulation
of facts filed by the parties states that the Appeals
officer “reviewed the offer-in-compromise and supporting
information which had been submitted to the Memphis Service
Center.” Furthermore, the Appeals officer’s first letter
to petitioner states as follows:
I have reviewed your offer and the financial
documentation submitted by your representative.
It does not appear, based on upon [sic] the
provisions, conditions, and examples provided
in the Internal Revenue Regulations section
301.7122-1(c)(3) and the Internal Revenue Manual
section 5.8.22.2(4), that you qualify for an
effective tax administration offer in compromise
due to economic hardship.
According to the attachment to the notice of
determination, the Appeals officer also advised
petitioner’s attorney during their conference that
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011