- 16 -
of his disability. See sec. 301.7122-1(c)(3)(iii), Examples (1),
(2), and (3), Proced. & Admin. Regs. None of these examples
bears any resemblance to this case, but instead they “describe
more dire circumstances”. Speltz v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 782,
786 (8th Cir. 2006), affg. 124 T.C. 165 (2005); see also Barnes
v. Commissioner, supra. Nevertheless, we address petitioner’s
arguments.
a. Discussion of Special Circumstances in the Notice
of Determination
Petitioner argues that Ms. Cochran failed “to follow proper
procedure by discussing [petitioner’s and Mrs. Johnson’s] special
circumstances * * * what equity was considered in relation to
[their] special circumstances, and how the special circumstances
affected her determination of [petitioner’s] ability to pay.”
Petitioner infers that, because the special circumstances were
not discussed in detail in the notice of determination, Ms.
Cochran failed to adequately take the circumstances into
consideration.
We do not believe that Appeals must specifically list in the
notice of determination every single fact that it considered in
arriving at the determination. See Barnes v. Commissioner,
supra. This is especially true in a case such as this, where
petitioner provided Ms. Cochran with multiple letters and
hundreds of pages of exhibits. As discussed below, Ms. Cochran
considered all of the arguments and information presented to her.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011