- 10 -
decided. The notice concluded petitioner’s $102,000 offer-in-
compromise was not an adequate collection alternative to the
proposed levy because petitioner had the ability to pay $448,762.
The notice, citing Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) sections
5.8.11.2.1 and 5.8.11.2.2, stated that petitioner’s offer did not
meet the Commissioner’s guidelines for consideration as an
offer-in-compromise to promote effective tax administration.
Specifically, the notice stated:
Considered under economic hardship, the taxpayer
has the ability to pay all assessed amounts and still
have assets remaining with equity worth over $200,000
in addition to an income stream of over $350,000. The
taxpayer’s representative contended that the taxpayer
was being evaluated for possible disability. The
Settlement Officer noted, however, that no actual
disability has been documented to date. The present
offer, therefore, must be considered within the
framework of present facts. As such, the taxpayer
failed to document economic hardship with or without
special circumstances, in accordance with Internal
Revenue Manual 5.8.11.2.1.
When considered under public policy or equity grounds, the
taxpayer’s Effective Tax Administration offer proposal fails to
meet the criteria for such consideration under Internal Revenue
Manual 5.8.11.2.2. For the reasons set forth in No. 1 above, the
taxpayer’s offer as an Effective Tax Administration offer based
on public policy or equity grounds, therefore, cannot be
considered.
In response to the notice of determination, petitioner filed
his petition with this Court on January 19, 2005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011