- 7 - As we previously stated, Officer Chapman requested that petitioner submit a Collection Information Statement and proof of estimated tax payments for 2005 and the first and second quarters of 2006 before the section 6330 hearing. Officer Chapman warned petitioner that he could not consider an installment agreement without the requested financial information from petitioner. Because petitioner failed to submit the requested financial information,2 Officer Chapman could not consider petitioner’s request to pay his tax liability through an installment agreement. Accordingly, respondent did not abuse his discretion in rejecting an installment agreement and sustaining the proposed collection action. See Chandler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-99; Roman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-20. We conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial in this case, and we hold that respondent is entitled to the entry of a decision sustaining the proposed levy as a matter of law. An appropriate order and decision will be entered. 2Nothing in the record indicates that petitioner or petitioner’s representative requested additional time to submit the requested financial information.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Last modified: November 10, 2007