- 16 -
and a modest home specially equipped to accommodate his
disability, and who is unable to borrow against his home because
of his disability. See sec. 301.7122-1(c)(3)(iii), Examples (1),
(2), and (3), Proced. & Admin. Regs. None of these examples
bears any resemblance to this case, but instead they “describe
more dire circumstances”. Speltz v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 782,
786 (8th Cir. 2006), affg. 124 T.C. 165 (2005); see also Barnes
v. Commissioner, supra. Nevertheless, we address petitioners’
arguments.
1. Discussion of Special Circumstances in the Notice of
Determination
Petitioners argue that Ms. Cochran failed “to follow proper
procedure by discussing Petitioners’ special circumstances, what
equity was considered in relation to their special circumstances,
and how the special circumstances affected her determination of
their ability to pay.” Petitioners infer that, because the
special circumstances were not discussed in detail in the notice
of determination, Ms. Cochran failed to adequately take their
circumstances into consideration.
We do not believe that Appeals must specifically list in the
notice of determination every single fact that it considered in
arriving at the determination. See Barnes v. Commissioner,
supra. This is especially true in a case such as this, where
petitioners provided Ms. Cochran with multiple letters and
hundreds of pages of exhibits. As discussed below, Ms. Cochran
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011