- 13 -
Rejection of Petitioners’ OIC
Because petitioners cannot dispute their underlying tax
liability, we review respondent’s determination with respect to
their OIC under the abuse of discretion standard. See sec.
6330(d); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
We find that respondent’s rejection of petitioners’ proposed
OIC was not an abuse of discretion. Respondent’s determination
was based on all of the information petitioners provided
reflecting their financial solvency to Ms. Roberts, respondent’s
Appeals Officer. See Crisan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
318; Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129. The Appeals
officer reasonably determined, on the basis of petitioners’
yearly income ($35,616) and asset value (TD Waterhouse account,
$41,301.41; vehicles--including “1995 boat”, $59,100; and Mrs.
Caple’s profit sharing plan, $30,000)--totaling $166,017.41--that
petitioners’ proposed OIC to pay $100 should be rejected.
In addition to the $100 payment, petitioners also offered
“$180,000 in future benefits” as part of their OIC. Unsure of
exactly what petitioners meant by this offer, the Court attempted
to ascertain petitioners’ intent. The Court’s query on this
matter resulted in the following exchange:
THE COURT: These are for future credits, not
past credits?
MS. CAPLE: Future credits.
THE COURT: Future credits?
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008