Michael D. Cornwell and Hilary J. Iker - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          petition erroneously alleged that both petitioners appealed all             
          three notices, but only petitioner husband is the recipient of              
          the October 20, 2003, notice of lien and the July 2, 2004, notice           
          of levy and of the determinations relating to those notices.)               
          Their challenge to the notices is that the settlement officer               
          abused his discretion in requiring an increased OIC of their                
          outstanding liabilities.                                                    
               Petitioners contend, among other things, that the notices of           
          determination sustaining two liens and a levy were an abuse of              
          discretion because the settlement officer failed to consider                
          evidence of “changed circumstances” presented by petitioners                
          before the notices of determination were issued and “in choosing            
          to not further investigate this change of circumstance caused by            
          a new overtime policy change”.  Respondent contends that the                
          faxes sent in July 2006 merely reiterated the employer’s policy             
          in effect in 2004 and that the settlement officer considered that           
          policy in adjusting the amount of an acceptable OIC based on                
          averaging petitioner’s earnings for the prior 5 years of his                
               The review applicable in cases such as this one was stated             
          in Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005), affd. 469              
          F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006), as follows:                                        
                    We do not conduct an independent review of what                   
               would be an acceptable offer in compromise.  Fowler v.                 
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163.  The extent of our                  
               review is to determine whether the Appeals officer’s                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007