- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011