- 7 -
We note that petitioners purchased a new residence with
$40,522 in cash at a time when they owed a substantial tax
liability. See Steinberg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-217
(no abuse of discretion in rejecting an offer-in-compromise where
taxpayers spent $100,000 on a residence down payment).
We are not aware of any reason why petitioners did not
attempt to refinance or to sell their residence before June 2007
as recommended by respondent’s Appeals officer to pay their
outstanding 1999 Federal income tax liability. If respondent’s
tax lien inhibited petitioners from refinancing or selling their
residence, petitioners could have requested respondent to
subordinate the tax lien under section 6325(d) to facilitate the
refinancing or sale. There is no indication that petitioners
made such a request.
For the first time in their summary judgment motion,
petitioners allege that respondent’s Appeals officer abused his
discretion by failing to properly balance the need for efficient
collection of taxes with the concern that a collection action be
no more intrusive than necessary. Petitioners’ argument fails.
As stated, petitioners never requested an installment agreement
nor did they make an offer-in-compromise, yet the Appeals officer
considered these collection alternatives and correctly concluded
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007