- 21 -
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.
Petitioner also asserts that Ms. Cochran abused her
discretion by using the value of petitioner’s section 401(k) plan
account in her calculation of his reasonable collection
potential. Petitioner argues that he must retain the section
401(k) plan account to pay future increases in expenses because
his income is insufficient to cover even his current expenses.
As discussed above, petitioner’s assertions regarding future
expenses are speculative and unsupported, and it was not
arbitrary or capricious for Ms. Cochran to ignore such costs.
However, even assuming arguendo that petitioner’s expenses will
increase, we would not find that Ms. Cochran abused her
discretion by factoring in petitioner’s section 401(k) plan
account to determine his reasonable collection potential.
While it is uncontested that petitioner’s expenses currently
exceed his income, petitioner ignores the fact that some of the
expenses allowed by Ms. Cochran are only temporary. Ms. Cochran
determined that petitioner’s mortgage would be paid off within 4
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011