- 18 -
specifically addressed in the notice of determination was not an
abuse of discretion.
2. Petitioners’ Income and Future Expenses
Petitioners assert that Ms. Cochran erroneously determined
their future income and expenses by: (1) Considering 86 months
of petitioners’ future income instead of 48 months; and (2)
failing to adequately consider their age, health, retirement
status, medical costs, and the likelihood of future increases in
medical and housing costs. Petitioners’ arguments are not
persuasive.
Section 5.8.5.5 of the IRM provides that, when a taxpayer
makes a cash offer to compromise an outstanding tax liability,
only 48 months of future income should be considered.
Petitioners made a cash offer, but Ms. Cochran used 86 months of
future income.13 At trial, Ms. Cochran acknowledged that she
should have used only 48 months of future income. Ms. Cochran
recomputed petitioners’ reasonable collection potential using 48
months and determined that it was $304,782, instead of $380,706,
as reflected in the notice of determination. Ms. Cochran
testified that the change would not have had an effect on her
final determination because, using either calculation,
petitioners’ reasonable collection potential was greater than
13 Ms. Cochran included 41 months of petitioners’ future
wage income and 45 months of Mr. Carter’s future monthly pension
payments.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011