Kevin F. Foley and Shula K. Foley - Page 6
- 6 -
collection alternatives and challenges to the appropriateness of
the collection action. Sec. 6330(c).
A taxpayer may request that his Federal income tax liability
be designated as currently not collectible. Such status may be
available where, based on the taxpayer’s assets, equity, income,
and expenses, the taxpayer has no apparent ability to make
payments on the outstanding tax liability. 2 Administration,
Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec. 126.96.36.199.9, at 17,810. See
also Willis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-302.
In a number of situations, courts have held that it will not
be regarded as an abuse of discretion where an Appeals officer
refuses to delay a proposed collection action to allow a taxpayer
to sell an asset. See Castillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-
238; Clawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-106; Medlock v.
United States, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1077-1079 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
Herein, the record establishes that respondent’s Appeals
officer did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the proposed
levy. The Appeals officer considered petitioners’ request to
designate their liability as currently not collectible and
correctly determined that it was not merited because of the
equity in petitioners’ residence. Further, the Appeals officer
did not abuse his discretion in rejecting petitioners’ request to
postpone the levy until after June 2007 to allow petitioners to
refinance or sell their residence.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: November 10, 2007