- 6 -
The Appeals officer considered petitioners’ challenge to the
appropriateness of the NFTL, noting that petitioners requested
that the NFTL be withdrawn and not reinstated unless they
defaulted on their installment agreement. They were concerned
about the negative effect the NFTL might have on their credit
rating and the impact it might have on their ability to secure
college loans for their son. The Appeals officer concluded that
petitioners’ reasons for withdrawal did not satisfy the
conditions authorizing withdrawal. The NFTL’s filing was not
premature because “[an] overpayment or [other] credit was not
available” and the NFTL could be maintained in conjunction with
the installment agreement without hindering collection of the
liability. See sec. 6323(j); sec. 301.6323(j)-1(b), Proced. &
Admin. Regs.
The Appeals officer also considered petitioners’ prior
submission of a collection alternative. The record shows that an
OIC had been submitted and was determined to be unacceptable.
Petitioners did not meet the criteria for an OIC because they had
the ability to pay the liability in full. The Commissioner had
also determined that petitioners could obtain an installment
agreement that would pay the liability in full within the time
prescribed by section 6502(a) and would not impose a financial
hardship on petitioners. Cf. secs. 301.6343-1(b)(4), 301.7122-
1(b) and (c), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008