Bobby J. Prater - Page 7
- 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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007