- 10 -
On August 30, 2005, this case was recalled. At that
hearing, petitioner informed the Court that he had been unable to
borrow from his thrift savings account, obtain a home equity
loan, or otherwise arrange to pay the balance of the tax
liabilities. He asked that respondent give him “a few months
more and then I can pay off the entire thing”.5
While we sympathize with petitioners over the loss of their
son and the financial burden it placed upon them, during the
administrative proceedings petitioners made no offers of
collection alternatives other than to reinstate an installment
agreement that does not reflect their ability to pay, nor did
they raise any spousal defenses or challenges to the
appropriateness of the levy.
In conclusion, we hold that respondent’s determination to
proceed with collection by levy of petitioners’ income taxes for
5In petitioners’ answering brief, filed with the Court on
Jan. 13, 2006, petitioner requests that he be allowed to postpone
payment of his tax liabilities until January 2007 to allow time
to process a new loan from his thrift savings account after the
existing loan is repaid in full in October 2006. Petitioner asks
the Court to remand the case to respondent’s Appeals Office to
consider that proposal. We will not consider a proposal not made
during the administrative proceedings. Moreover, petitioners
have over $1,000 of monthly income available to pay their tax
liabilities and/or to pay down the outstanding loan from the
thrift savings plan. Yet during the 21 months since they filed
the petition in this case, petitioners have not increased the
monthly payments on the existing loan from petitioner’s thrift
savings account and have paid only $4,000 toward their tax
liabilities. Under these circumstances, petitioner’s request is
unreasonable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011