- 23 -
remand this case to the Commissioner, whom the law authorizes to
make installment agreements. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
183, 189 (2001); see Harrell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-271
(concluding that the issuance of a notice of determination was an
abuse of discretion and remanding the matter to the Commissioner
for the sole purpose of allowing the taxpayer to pursue
collection alternatives), motion for reconsideration denied T.C.
Memo. 2003-312.
We shall remand this matter to the Commissioner for the sole
purpose of reconsidering petitioners’ $1,200 per month
installment agreement proposal or such other collection
alternatives as petitioners might now wish to offer. In
evaluating any such collection alternatives, the Commissioner
should consider petitioners’ current financial circumstances,
petitioners’ current paying and filing compliance, and any other
relevant factors. The Commissioner should also take into
account, to the extent relevant, applicable amendments to section
6159(a), which authorize partial payment installment agreements.
Petitioners may not further challenge the imposition of the
section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax or raise any new or
additional issues beyond offering collection alternatives.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order
will be issued.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Last modified: May 25, 2011