Theodore C. and Denise M. Schwartz - Page 8
- 8 -
Estimated payments, intended to ensure that current taxes
are paid, are a significant component of the Federal tax system,
and the Appeals officer was entitled to rely on their absence in
reaching her conclusions. Cox v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 237, 258
(2006). In fact, petitioners' circumstances illustrate one of
the reasons for requiring current compliance before granting
collection alternatives such as an offer-in-compromise or an
installment agreement; namely, the risk of pyramiding tax
liability.7 Id.; see also Orum v. Commissioner, 412 F.3d 819,
821 (7th Cir. 2005), affg. 123 T.C. 1 (2004).
We generally consider “only arguments, issues, and other
matter that were raised at the collection hearing or otherwise
brought to the attention of the Appeals Office.” Magana v.
Commissioner, supra at 493. The Appeals officer’s exercise of
discretion, therefore, must be examined in light of the facts as
they existed at the time the determination was made.8
Accordingly, we hold that the Appeals officer did not abuse her
7 In addition to petitioners’ noncompliance with regard to
their individual income taxes, petitioners own and operate a
dental practice which is currently being levied upon by
respondent for unpaid employment taxes.
8 At trial, petitioner Theodore C. Schwartz testified and
presented evidence that he hoped would show petitioners were
current with their estimated tax payments at the time of trial.
The Court suggested that if this were true, and was the only
obstacle to considering an installment agreement, the parties
might be able to resolve their differences. In a posttrial
status report, respondent stated that petitioners had not
satisfied their estimated tax liabilities for 2005 or 2006.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: November 10, 2007