Richard T. and Catherine L.. Lites - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
          than 5 years, plus up to 1 year to account for changes in the               
          agreement (such as payment skips, interest rate changes, etc.).             
          I.R.M. sec. 5.14.2.1(6) (effective Mar. 30, 2002).11                        
               Petitioners initially requested an installment agreement               
          that would require them to pay $750 per month, having submitted a           
          Form 433-A that indicated they had $888 excess monthly income               
          after taking into account monthly living expenses.  After the               
          Appeals officer rejected this proposal, petitioners counter-                
          offered, first proposing to pay $1,000 per month and then                   
          proposing to pay $1,200 per month.  The Notice of Determination             
          addresses--and rejects--petitioners’ proposals to pay $750 per              
          month and $1,000 per month but does not expressly address                   
          petitioners’ proposal to pay $1,200 per month.12                            


               11 Current Internal Revenue Service policy is to extend the            
          collection statute expiration date only in conjunction with                 
          partial payment installment agreements and only in certain                  
          situations.  I.R.M. sec. 5.14.2.1 (effective July 12, 2005).                
               12 As previously noted, the Notice of Determination refers             
          to an apparently last-in-time proposal by petitioners to pay                
          $1,300 to $1,400 per month.  The Notice of Determination                    
          indicates that the $1,300 to $1,400 per month offer was rejected            
          because petitioners had failed to show that they were currently             
          making adequate withholdings.  At the same time, however, the               
          Notice of Determination acknowledges that “the Appeals Officer              
          had not required that the withholding be increased” and concludes           
          that an installment agreement would be granted only in the amount           
          of $2,700 per month.  Such reasoning strikes us as a nonsequitur:           
          It is not apparent why petitioners’ failure to increase their tax           
          withholding should doom their offer when that had not been made a           
          precondition for an installment agreement, or indeed why it                 
          should be a precondition for petitioners’ offer but not for the             
          Appeals Office’s counteroffer.                                              
                                                             (continued...)           




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