- 25 -
petitioners’ offer in compromise if the motion for summary
judgment is denied. Petitioners have repudiated this suggestion
and asked us to decide this case on the arguments presented. In
view of petitioners’ position, for purposes of this case, that
they should not be required to pay any more than the amount that
they offered, differences as to the calculation of their ability
to pay installments are not material and do not preclude
resolution of this case on summary judgment. See Rule 121(b).
We are not in a position to determine the amount or duration of
any installments that petitioners could or should be required to
pay. The only issue before us is whether there was an abuse of
discretion in refusing the offer in compromise in the amount of
$4,457 and concluding that the lien filed by the IRS should
remain in place. As respondent points out, any levy on
particular assets of petitioners that the IRS proposes to pursue
in the future will also require notice and an opportunity to be
heard under section 6320 or 6330. Petitioners may submit another
offer in compromise. Petitioners’ income and expenses may
change. We conclude, however, that there was no abuse of
discretion in declining to accept petitioners’ offer dated
November 2, 2001, and continuing the lien in effect.
Order and Decision will
be entered for respondent.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Last modified: May 25, 2011