- 8 -
the taxpayer’s OIC was unacceptable because the taxpayer could
pay his full tax liability within the period of limitations for
collection.
In this case, the settlement officer did not conduct an
independent review. Although the settlement officer reviewed
documents prepared by respondent’s agents regarding the second
OIC, the settlement officer did not review the second OIC and/or
the documents supporting the second OIC--the Forms 433A and 656,
the income and expense worksheets, and the medical records.
Instead, the settlement officer relied solely on the conclusory,
undocumented, and unsupported figures from the handwritten
determination of reasonable collection potential prepared by the
revenue officer.
Accordingly, we conclude that, unlike the Appeals officer in
Schenkel, the settlement officer in this case did not conduct an
independent administrative review of the rejection of the OIC.
Sec. 7122(d)(1). Additionally, the evidence does not establish
that the settlement officer prepared a monthly income and
allowable expense analysis based on all of the information Mr.
and Mrs. Harris provided or that the figures the settlement
officer relied on represented national standard expenses. Sec.
7122(c)(2); sec. 301.7122-1(b)(2), (k), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
(the regulation applies as the OIC in issue was pending or
submitted on or after July 18, 2002).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011