- 14 -
penalties. Petitioners simply set forth unsubstantiated
arguments in support of their claim that the misapplication of
transferred payments has distorted the assessment of statutory
interest, penalties, and their subsequent tax year liabilities.
However, respondent has submitted into evidence account
summaries for petitioners’ 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
1997, 1998, and 1999 income tax accounts. Respondent has also
submitted into evidence an Internal Revenue Service spreadsheet
that establishes the application of transferred payments among
petitioners’ accounts.
Upon the basis of the record, we find that respondent
correctly determined that all of the unpaid tax liabilities,
including interest and penalties, are correct.
B. Collection Action
Considering petitioners’ argument as a challenge to the
application of payments in a collection action or as a challenge
to the rejection of petitioners’ OIC, we review this issue under
an abuse of discretion standard. See Sego v. Commissioner, supra
at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 181-182; see also,
e.g., Swanson v. Commissioner, supra.
As stated previously, under an abuse of discretion standard,
we do not “interfere unless the Commissioner’s determination is
arbitrary, capricious, clearly unlawful, or without sound basis
in fact or law.” Ewing v. Commissioner, supra at 39.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011