- 7 -
adjustment in accordance with respondent’s national guideline
amounts based on petitioners’ monthly income and household size.
Cochran also considered petitioners’ particular circumstances but
noted that they did not warrant allowing the higher figure
submitted by petitioners. Second, Cochran allowed $1,093
(instead of $1,500) for monthly housing expenses. She made this
adjustment in accordance with respondent’s local guideline
amounts and noted that petitioners had not documented any reason
for deviating from these guidelines. Finally, Cochran allowed
$2,100 (instead of $4,000) for monthly tax expenses. She arrived
at this figure by calculating petitioners’ monthly income and
determining their approximate monthly tax liability. She noted
that petitioners resided in Washington, which does not have a
State income tax. In sum, Cochran concluded that petitioners had
allowable monthly expenses of $5,675.
Cochran determined that petitioners’ net realizable equity
in their assets was either $311,200 or $306,013, see supra
note 7, and that petitioners had a monthly disposable income of
$6,265 ($11,940 in monthly income less $5,675 of monthly
allowable expenses). Cochran also determined that petitioners
could pay $300,720 from their future income.9 In sum, Cochran
9 Cochran arrived at $300,720 by multiplying petitioners’
monthly disposable income of $6,265 by a factor of 48. Cochran
used a 48-month factor because petitioners were offering to
compromise their tax liability by paying cash. See Internal
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011