Richard T. and Catherine L.. Lites - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          proposals.  For instance, having found that petitioners have                
          excess monthly income of $2,732 per month, the Appeals officer              
          concluded that petitioners’ offers to pay $750 per month and                
          $1,000 per month (and ostensibly their offer to pay $1,200 per              
          month, although the Appeals officer’s reasons for rejecting this            
          offer are not explicitly documented in the record) would not be             
          in the best interests of either petitioners or the Government,              
          reasoning that, in light of Richard’s age and health and other              
          factors, petitioners and the Government both would be better off            
          if the liabilities were paid off sooner rather than later.  If,             
          however, as respondent now asserts, petitioners could not afford            
          to pay the lesser amounts that they had offered, then it would              
          not appear to serve either petitioners’ or the Government’s                 
          interests to require petitioners to pay the much higher amount of           
          $2,700 per month, as the Appeals Office insisted.15                         

               15 In addition, the Appeals officer indicated that                     
          petitioners’ payment proposals would require extending the                  
          collection statute expiration date to at least the year 2014,               
          whereas if petitioners accepted the Appeals officer’s offer of a            
          $2,700 per month installment agreement, the tax liabilities could           
          be paid in full by 2007.  The record does not reflect the basis             
          for the Appeals officer’s conclusion that accepting petitioners’            
          installment proposals would require extending the collection                
          statute expiration date to 2014, or to what extent this                     
          conclusion was meant to apply to petitioners’ offer to pay $1,200           
          per month (which is not expressly addressed in the Appeals                  
          officer’s letters or in the Notice of Determination).  Simple               
          math shows that petitioners’ proposal to pay $1,200 per month               
          would result in total payments of $72,000 over 5 years.                     
          Considering that petitioners’ unpaid tax liabilities for 1999 and           
          2000 (after taking into account respondent’s concession of the              
          sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for 1999, but without taking into           
                                                             (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