- 11 -
earnings is evident. Petitioner’s forgone earnings presumably
depend on the type of employment he could obtain, which in turn
depends on factors such as his work experience, job skills, and
the strength of the labor market. There is no indication the
Appeals officer considered these factors or attempted to
calculate petitioner’s forgone earnings.4 Rather, it appears the
Appeals officer assumed that petitioner would earn sufficient
income, after allowable expenses, to pay his tax liability in
full. Petitioner’s history of intermittent employment and modest
wage income raises doubts about the validity of this assumption.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the Appeals officer considered
that petitioner might have increased expenses if he discontinued
his studies, such as student loan repayments.
We conclude the Appeals officer abused his discretion in
rejecting petitioner’s OIC on the ground that petitioner had
sufficient future income to pay his 2002 tax liability in full.
We therefore shall remand this matter to the Appeals Office for
reconsideration of petitioner’s OIC.
4 As mentioned supra, the Appeals officer prepared an income
projection based on petitioner’s 2002 gross income of $38,686.
After petitioner explained that he had received a car as part of
a sales promotion, however, it appears the Appeals officer
acknowledged the income projection was inaccurate. There is no
indication the Appeals officer prepared a revised income
projection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011