- 14 -
living expenses and to satisfy the outstanding tax liability.
As we said in Speltz v. Commissioner, supra at 178, under
almost identical facts:
Unlike the examples set forth under section
301.7122-1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs., petitioners do
not claim illness or a medical condition or disability;
they do not have income that is exhausted providing for
the care of dependents; and they have sufficient income
to meet “basic living expenses”. Petitioners’ hardship
argument is essentially that the tax liability is
disproportionate to the value that they received from
the ISOs and that they have already been forced to
change their lifestyle unreasonably. ***
Petitioner’s urgent plea in this case does not fall on deaf ears.
We sympathize with petitioner’s situation, but regrettably this
type of hardship is not unique in the AMT-ISO arena. Id. at 177.
It remains for Congress to address the issue if it chooses to do
so, but as the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said in
Kenseth v. Commissioner, 259 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2001), affg.
114 T.C. 399 (2000): “it is not a feasible judicial undertaking
to achieve global equity in taxation”.
We have considered petitioner’s many other arguments, but we
find them to be without merit. We hold that petitioner failed to
establish that the IRS abused its discretion on the basis of the
promotion of effective tax administration when it refused
petitioner’s OIC.
At the hearing, petitioner moved orally to admit a “Third
Stipulation of Facts” relating to an OIC by her husband, Kenneth
Lee, who contemporaneously had a similar matter pending before
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011