Nicholas D. Newton - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          petitioner’s ability to pay his outstanding tax liabilities.6               
          After all, it doesn’t take much of a financial structure to                 
          support a payment in excess of $1,000.                                      
               Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, we             
          are satisfied that respondent’s determination to collect by levy            
          petitioner’s outstanding tax liabilities is supported in law and            
          in fact.  It follows that the determination is not an abuse of              
          discretion, see Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14 (2005), and             
          respondent may proceed with collection as proposed in the above-            
          referenced notice of determination.                                         
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              

                                             Decision will be entered                 
          for respondent.                                                             














               6 For example, the parties stipulated that at the time the             
          2004 offer was under consideration by the settlement officer,               
          petitioner “had a savings certificate of deposit with an account            
          balance of $28,000”.                                                        






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6

Last modified: November 10, 2007