- 26 -
calculating petitioners' reasonable collection potential. These
issues are therefore not material, even if disputed.
Regarding the issue of whether petitioners have monthly
excess income of $2,813, petitioners' claim that this is a
disputed issue of fact merely restates their challenge to the
analysis and conclusions reached by the offer specialist and
Appeals officer concerning their future income, which we have
fully considered and addressed above.
Conclusion
We note that we are not called upon to decide in this case
what would have been an acceptable offer-in-compromise or
installment agreement. Rather, we must decide whether the
Appeals officer's rejection of the collection alternatives
offered by petitioners was an abuse of discretion. See Speltz v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. 165, 179-180 (2005); Fowler v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163. As noted, the only collection
alternatives offered by petitioners were substantially below
their reasonable collection potential as estimated under
respondent's published guidelines. Accordingly, we hold that it
was not an abuse of discretion to reject them, that there are no
genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary
judgment, and that respondent is entitled to a decision in his
favor that he may proceed with the proposed collection by levy.
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