- 22 -
Conclusion
The Notice of Determination rejected petitioners’
installment agreement proposals (without expressly referring to
petitioners’ $1,200 per month proposal) largely on the basis of a
finding that petitioners had excess income of $2,732. Respondent
has effectively conceded that this finding was erroneous and
thereby inadvertently convinced us that, insofar as it relates to
petitioners’ proposed installment agreements, the Notice of
Determination was not justifiable in light of the facts and
circumstances. Accordingly, we hold that it was an abuse of
discretion to issue the Notice of Determination in these
circumstances.
In their petition, petitioners request as relief that they
“be granted an installment agreement in an amount they will
reasonably be able to afford.” On brief, petitioners request
that “a proposed payment plan of $1,200 per month be accepted to
fully address the tax liability.” We have no basis, however, for
evaluating the amount petitioners can now reasonably afford or
for deciding whether an installment payment plan of $1,200 per
month--or of any other particular amount--is an appropriate
collection alternative in light of petitioners’ current financial
condition and circumstances, whatever those might be.
Accordingly, we believe that it is “necessary and productive” to
16(...continued)
Robinette v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 85 (2004).
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