- 10 -
Assuming petitioner secures employment after graduation, he
likely will earn significantly more income than he has over the
past several years. For the reasons stated above, however, it is
difficult to estimate the amount of his future income or when he
will receive such income. The facts of petitioner’s case
therefore appear to fit squarely within IRM sec. 5.8.5.5(6).
Nevertheless, there is no indication that the Appeals officer
considered using a future income collateral agreement. Instead,
the Appeals officer determined that because petitioner’s status
as a student was “not really relevant”, petitioner’s future
income included the wages he could have earned, but chose to
forgo, in order to pursue his studies (forgone earnings). The
Appeals officer also determined that petitioner’s forgone
earnings were sufficient to pay his 2002 tax liability in full.
It is true petitioner could have increased his income had he
discontinued his education and found work; however, we can find
nothing in the IRM suggesting that a student’s forgone earnings
are a component of future income. In fact, the example in IRM
sec. 5.8.5.5(6) indicates a taxpayer can qualify for an OIC
despite choosing to pursue education rather than employment. The
example does not include forgone earnings as part of the
taxpayer’s reasonable collection potential.
Even if petitioner’s future income did include forgone
earnings, the difficulty of calculating the amount of such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011