- 18 -
The $15,600 which Dr. Samuel paid for his 2003 estimated tax
payment should have been excluded from the dissipated assets
category, and if Appeals was in doubt about the includability of
the $5,000 incurred in association with Dr. Samuel’s civil law
suit and the $5,464 paid for child support, these amounts should
have been excluded also. It was an abuse of discretion not to do
so.
It is represented in his brief that petitioner has been
current on all of the filings and payments of his taxes, starting
with 2003. It appears from the Appeals Case Determination that
petitioner has in fact minimal assets from which cash could be
realized, but that he has a medical practice that produces a
fairly substantial amount of income. Clearly, then, any IRS
recovery from petitioner would have to come principally, if not
entirely, from his medical practice income.
In connection with its consideration of petitioner’s offer-
in-compromise, Appeals prepared the following table to illustrate
petitioner’s future income potential. The Case Determination
states that the table is intended to show that petitioner’s
future income potential is more than his $30,000 offer.
Total Income Necessary Living Expenses
Source Gross Claimed Allowed
Wages/salaries $7,963 Natl.Std $976 $953
T/P expenses
Wages/salaries Housing & 1,024 1,034
spouse utilities
Interest Transportation 0 0
Net business Health care 50 100
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007