Donald and Yvonne Clayton - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               Petitioners take exception to the fact that the notice of              
          determination does not list either petitioners’ age or their                
          employment status, speculating from this fact that Cochran did              
          not adequately take into account their special circumstances.               
          Petitioners also assert that Cochran failed to take their special           
          circumstances into account because, they assert, she did not                
          reflect that they both have “significant medical conditions” and            
          that their medical expenses will increase in later years.                   
          Petitioners’ assertions and speculation are without merit.  We do           
          not believe that Appeals must specifically list in the notice of            
          determination every single fact that it considered in arriving at           
          the determination.  See Barnes v. Commissioner, supra.  Nor do we           
          find that Cochran inadequately considered the information                   
          actually given to her by petitioners.  Cochran allowed the full             
          amount of medical expenses that petitioners submitted on their              
          Form 433-A.  While petitioners argue that Cochran abused her                
          discretion by not allowing additional medical expenses that they            
          claim they will incur in future years on account of their age, we           
          disagree.  Petitioners’ claim to these expenses is too                      
          speculative in that it is based not on their specific situation             
          but on their reading of Government studies on the relationship              
          between health costs and the elderly in general.  We do not                 
          believe that Appeals abused its discretion in not allowing                  
          petitioners’ proffered anticipated future medical costs.  See               






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011