- 13 -
As it stands, to be entitled to the relief he seeks in this
case, petitioner must establish that, in and of itself,
respondent’s refusal to agree to the installment agreement that
he proposed during the administrative hearing was an abuse of
discretion. This he has failed to do.
Accepting or rejecting an installment agreement proposed by
a taxpayer is within the discretion of the Commissioner. See
sec. 301.6159-1(b)(1)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Discretionary
decisions made in response to an installment agreement proposed
by a taxpayer will not be upset unless it is demonstrated that
the decision was arbitrary in one way or another and could not be
supported in law and in fact. See Freije v. Commissioner, 125
T.C. 14 (2005); Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129.
In this case, the settlement officer took into account
petitioner’s outstanding tax liabilities and reviewed what
financial information petitioner submitted.
Based upon his review, the settlement officer noted that the
installment agreement proposed by petitioner would not be
sufficient to pay off petitioner’s outstanding tax liabilities
within the applicable periods of limitation. After reviewing
petitioner’s financial situation, the settlement officer also
concluded that the installment agreement proposed by petitioner
did not accurately represent petitioner’s ability to pay. We
do not substitute our judgment for the settlement officer’s on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007