- 6 -
installment agreement. 2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual
(CCH), sec. 5.14.1.2(9)(e), at 17,504. The Appeals officer
determined that petitioner was noncompliant with his current tax
obligations, having failed to fully pay his 2003 taxes and to
make estimated tax payments for tax year 2004. Petitioner does
not dispute that he was not current with his tax filing and
payment requirements but contends that he “was in the process of
completing his then current year[’]s return and * * * substantial
strides had been made toward bringing the Petitioner into
complete compliance with the law.” Inasmuch as petitioner admits
that he was not compliant with his current tax obligations, the
Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion in concluding that
petitioner was ineligible for an installment agreement.
In rejecting petitioner’s installment agreement offer, the
Appeals officer also determined that petitioner could afford to
fully pay his tax liabilities by borrowing against his 50-percent
interest in the real estate. Petitioner contends that this
determination was in error.3 This contention is moot in light of
our conclusion that the Appeals officer properly exercised his
3 Petitioner contends that the Appeals officer erred in
determining the value of petitioner’s 50-percent real estate
interest (notwithstanding that the Appeals officer used the
identical value that petitioner had listed on his Form 433-A) and
in failing to consider the effect of petitioner’s joint ownership
of the real estate with his brother and the effect that
respondent’s lien would have on his ability to borrow against the
real estate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011