- 18 -
broadly as petitioners. Fargo does not support their claim that
Appeals was automatically required to accept petitioners’
bargain-basement offer of $11,552. It cannot be gainsaid that a
significant motivation of their investment in the Hoyt tax
shelters was to realize tax savings.
Petitioners also argue that their offer was required to be
accepted because they adequately demonstrated that they will
suffer economic hardship if required to pay their assessed tax
liability in full. To this end, petitioners state, Driver
ignored both their medical issues and their age and retirement
status in making her determination, and it is “reasonably
foreseeable” that they will need all of their home equity and
retirement assets to compensate for this shortfall and to use for
their care and support in the future. By petitioners’ count,
their monthly income is exceeded by their monthly expenses,
creating a deficit of $819 (i.e., monthly income of $3,223 less
monthly living expenses of $4,042), and Driver’s analysis
requires that they liquidate all of their retirement accounts and
home equity in order to pay their tax liability.
We disagree with petitioners that they have demonstrated
that requiring them to pay more than $11,552 towards their
assessed tax liability will result in an economic hardship.9 The
9 Even if they had shown economic hardship, a compromise on
the basis of effective tax administration will not be made if it
(continued...)
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007