- 22 -
a lump-sum payment of $67,000 to satisfy their tax liabilities,
we do not believe it was an abuse of discretion for the Appeals
officer to disregard this claim in concluding that they had net
realizable equity of $40,000.
We also find no abuse of discretion in the Appeals officer's
acceptance of the offer specialist's computation of future
income. The offer specialist's increase in monthly income as
reported by petitioners followed guidelines, given petitioners'
Forms W-2 and Federal income tax return for 2001. Her decreases
in reported monthly expenses likewise conformed to respondent's
published guidelines. Petitioners offer no specific dispute with
these adjustments. Instead, Mr. Lemann wrote in connection with
the hearing that "I am now 60 years of age and may very well not
have 4 more years of productivity" and that the future income
calculated by the offer specialist was "impossible given my
financial circumstances". Similarly, the petition avers that
"application of the formula used by the Commissioner to determine
the acceptable amount of an installment agreement or Offer in
Compromise failed to adequately take into account Petitioners'
age, earning capacity, and poor financial circumstances".
We interpret petitioners' statements as claims that the
Appeals officer's determination failed to take into account their
special circumstances, as required by section 7122(c)(2)(B) and
IRM sections 5.8.5.4 (Nov. 2000) and 5.8.11.2.1 (Nov. 2001). We
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011