- 23 -
disagree, because we are satisfied that petitioners have not
identified any condition sufficient to constitute special
circumstances as contemplated by the regulations and IRM
guidelines. The offer specialist's case notes record that
petitioners did not identify special circumstances, even after
she explained the concept and solicited them. Being age 60 is
not a special circumstance under the guidelines, which refer to
being "elderly" as a potential special circumstance. See IRM,
sec. 5.8.5.4 (Nov. 2001). Beyond the statements noted above,
petitioners have not identified any facts in their petition or in
their opposition to the motion for summary judgment that might
constitute special circumstances, such as poor health,
disability, advanced age, or dependents with special needs. We
accordingly do not believe it was an abuse of discretion for the
Appeals officer to conclude that no special circumstances
existed. Stated differently, the Appeals officer's use of the
premise that Mr. Lemann would be able to work until the
traditional retirement age of 65 and generate approximately the
same income over that period was not arbitrary or unreasonable in
these circumstances. The Appeals officer's decision to adhere to
the guidelines was therefore not an abuse of discretion.
Generally, where an Appeals officer has followed
respondent's guidelines to ascertain a taxpayer's reasonable
collection potential and rejected the taxpayer's collection
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