- 20 -
supporting information, it was not arbitrary or capricious for
Mr. Owens to use national and local standards in determining
petitioners’ allowable housing and utilities expense, including
the second mortgage expense.
b. Food, Clothing, etc. Expense
Mr. Owens used national standards for a family of 1 to
determine petitioners’ allowable food, clothing, etc. expense.
Petitioners argue that Mr. Owens abused his discretion by using
the standard for a family of 1 instead of a family of 4. As
described above, petitioners did not show they would be unable to
provide for basic living expenses if only allowed the national
and local standards. Mr. Owens’s use of such standards was not
arbitrary or capricious. However, Mr. Owens erred by using the
national standard for a family of 1. Mr. Owens acknowledged his
mistake and testified that he should have used the national
standard for a family of 4, which was $1,564.
c. Other Expenses: Son’s Education Expense
Mr. Owens disallowed petitioners’ other expenses, which
included $309 per month for their son’s private education. IRM
section 5.8.5.5.3(6) states that “Expenses for dependents to
attend * * * private schools are not allowed unless the
dependents have special needs that cannot be met by public
schools.” Petitioners presented no information to indicate their
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