- 5 -
necessary, including: Petitioner June M. Speltz had to get a job
instead of staying home with the children; the oldest daughter
had to switch schools; petitioners were unable to contribute to
their retirement and to their children’s education fund; and they
had to reduce their charitable donations. Finally, they could
not afford to have a fourth child, which they had wanted.
Petitioners offered in compromise $4,457, the cash surrender
value on petitioner’s life insurance. In the statement,
petitioners expressed their mental anguish and frustration with
the unfairness of their situation.
Petitioners’ offer in compromise was reviewed by Revenue
Officer Robert G. Dallas (Dallas), an offer in compromise
specialist. Dallas indicated to petitioners that he was
rejecting the offer in compromise because petitioners had the
ability to pay the outstanding tax liability in full. On
October 6, 2002, petitioners wrote to Dallas disputing amounts
that Dallas had used in his calculation. On October 9, 2002,
Dallas indicated that certain adjustments that were requested by
petitioners had been made. He wrote, however:
The adjustments to the Income/Expense table you
requested have not been granted because the allowed
amount * * * is the allowable housing and utility
standard for families of your number in Linn County,
Iowa. The excess expenses you have claimed * * *
cannot be moved * * * solely to circumvent the
allowable standard amount.
Based upon your current financial condition, we have
determined that you have the ability to pay your
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011