- 21 -
the IRM. This Court has previously found determinations following
from computations under the IRM to be a proper exercise of the
Commissioner’s discretion. See Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-129. The revenue agent applied these procedures and
disallowed certain expenses. The Appeals officer acknowledged at
trial that he was not bound by the revenue agent’s determination.
However, the Appeals officer properly reviewed the revenue agent’s
computations, which were based upon the financial statement, and
found them to be correct. Therefore, those computations were not
based on any arbitrary determination, and petitioners’ argument is
without merit.
Petitioners set forth a litany of factors that they argue the
Appeals officer did not take into account in assessing their
ability to pay, such as Davis Etkin’s age, heart condition, gall
bladder removal, and other health-related problems. In addition,
petitioners cite the termination of Davis Etkin by his employer
and the denial of benefits, along with $200,000 in fines and
restitution payments that Davis Etkin was required to make in
connection with his sentence for defrauding the Government and
bribery. Petitioners’ argument is without merit because
petitioners failed to submit an updated financial statement that
reflected these alleged changes in their financial situation. See
Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1 (2004).
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011