- 19 -
available excess monthly income of $888, which would have more
than covered their offer of $750 per month. Moreover, the
Internal Revenue Manual does not appear to contemplate rejecting
an installment agreement merely because the taxpayer has offered
more than the Commissioner believes the taxpayer can afford.14
Finally, and most fundamentally, respondent’s position on brief
conflicts directly with the rationale articulated in the Notice
of Determination. The Appeals Office rejected petitioners’
installment agreement proposals largely on the basis that
petitioners could afford to pay much more than they had offered.
Now, apparently, respondent seeks to defend this action on the
opposite ground that petitioners could not afford to pay as much
as they had offered. Respondent cannot have it both ways.
The finding that petitioners could afford to pay $2,732 per
month appears central to the decision in the Notice of
Determination to reject petitioners’ installment agreement
14 I.R.M. sec. 5.14.1.4(9) (effective July 1, 2002) states:
If an analysis of the taxpayer’s financial
condition shows taxpayers cannot pay:
• but they insist on installment agreements;
• amounts proposed will fully pay the bal
[sic] due account(s) within the collection
statute (and waiver period if appropriate);
• but the possibility remains that payments
cannot be made;
then prepare a backup Form 53 along with the
installment agreement in case of eventual default
and termination. * * *
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