Diana Van Arsdalen, f.k.a. Diana Murray, Petitioner, and Stanley David Murray, Intervenor - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          employment status and history, ability to earn, and number of               
          dependents; (2) the amount reasonably necessary for food,                   
          clothing, housing, medical expenses, transportation, current tax            
          payments, alimony, child support, or other court-ordered                    
          payments, and expenses necessary to the taxpayer’s production of            
          income; (3) cost of living in the geographic area where the                 
          taxpayer resides; (4) the amount of property exempt from the levy           
          that is available to pay the taxpayer’s expenses; (5) any                   
          extraordinary circumstances; and (6) any other factor that the              
          taxpayer claims bears on economic hardship and brings to the                
          Commissioner’s attention.  Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(ii), Proced. &             
          Admin. Regs.                                                                
                    b.   Petitioner’s Income and Expenses                             
               In recommending that petitioner not be granted relief under            
          section 6015(f), the Appeals officer said that petitioner had               
          $1,764 of disposable income per month in 2001, and that her                 
          income had increased since then.  That amount roughly equals the            
          excess of petitioner’s monthly income (including child support)             
          in 2001 of $4,184 over the six monthly expenses petitioner listed           
          on May 31, 2001.                                                            
               Respondent concluded that petitioner’s living expenses are             
          much lower than they actually are, apparently by erroneously                
          assuming that the six expenses petitioner listed in 2001 were her           
          only expenses.  Respondent did not consider several additional              






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011