- 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 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007