- 15 -
Commissioner, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2003); Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
supra.
Petitioners' Proposed Installment Agreement
The Appeals officer rejected petitioners' initial proposal
to pay $1,500 per month to satisfy the liabilities at issue on
the grounds that such an installment agreement would not result
in satisfaction of the liabilities within the applicable periods
of limitation on collection. Section 6159(a) gives the Secretary
discretionary authority to enter into installment agreements to
satisfy tax liabilities where he determines that it will
facilitate collection. Under the statute and regulations
applicable in 2002, generally only installment agreements that
allowed a taxpayer to fully satisfy a tax liability before
expiration of the applicable period of limitation on collection
were authorized.10 See sec. 6159(a); sec. 301.6159-1(a), Proced.
& Admin. Regs. Petitioners' proposal to pay $1,500 per month was
insufficient to satisfy their outstanding tax liabilities in full
before the collection period expiration dates, the latest of
which was July 21, 2007.11 Accordingly, it cannot be said that
10 Sec. 6159(a) was amended by the American Jobs Creation
Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-357, sec. 843(a)(1)(B), 118 Stat. 1600,
to authorize the Secretary to enter into installment agreements
that do not fully satisfy a tax liability, effective for
agreements entered into on or after Oct. 22, 2004.
11 This proposition is self-evident. Petitioners'
(continued...)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011