Estate of Carol Andrews, Deceased, Robert Andrews, Special Administrator, and Robert Andrews - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
               As reflected in the notice of determination, Ms. Cochran               
          took into consideration the information petitioners presented,              
          but concluded that “these possible future expenses are general              
          projections from the taxpayers’ representative and may never, in            
          fact, be incurred.  The present offer, therefore, must be                   
          considered within the framework of present facts.”  Given the               
          information presented to her, it was not arbitrary or capricious            
          for Ms. Cochran to ignore these speculative future costs in                 
          making her final determination.                                             
               Petitioners also raise challenges to various other                     
          determinations made by Ms. Cochran, including:  (1) The                     
          determination that their house had a value of $350,000; (2) the             
          inclusion of 100 percent of the value of the section 401(k) plan            
          account (less estimated tax and penalties); (3) the reduction of            
          their housing and utilities expense; and (4) the disallowance of            
          $460 in other expenses.  We need not discuss in detail these and            
          other minor disputes raised by petitioners.  Even assuming                  
          arguendo that petitioners’ income, expenses, and value of assets            
          should have been accepted as reported, we would not find that Ms.           
          Cochran abused her discretion in rejecting petitioners’ offer-in-           
               Ms. Cochran testified that, had she accepted the income,               
          expenses, and value of assets as reported, petitioners’                     
          reasonable collection potential would have been $160,146.                   

Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011