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:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007