Jan L. Ashlock - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
               On April 7, 2006, respondent’s Appeals Office issued its               
          notice of determination sustaining respondent’s notice of tax               
          lien filing and rejecting petitioner’s OIC.                                 

                                     Discussion                                       
               Section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii) permits a taxpayer to propose               
          collection alternatives to the filing of a Federal tax lien.                
          Rev. Proc. 2003-71, sec. 4.02(2), 2003-2 C.B. 517, 517, provides            
          that an OIC based on doubt as to collectibility will be treated             
          as an acceptable collection alternative only where the OIC                  
          reflects the reasonable collection potential from the taxpayer.             
               Where a taxpayer has dissipated assets in disregard of the             
          taxpayer’s outstanding Federal income taxes, the dissipated                 
          assets may be included in the calculation of the minimum amount             
          that is to be paid under an acceptable OIC.  Internal Revenue               
          Manual (IRM) 5.8.5.4(5).                                                    
               A dissipated asset is defined as any asset (liquid or not              
          liquid) that has been sold, transferred, or spent on nonpriority            
          items and/or debts and is no longer available to pay the tax                
          liability.  Samuel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-312; IRM                
          5.8.5.4(1).                                                                 
               Our review of respondent’s adverse determination relating to           
          petitioner’s proposed OIC focuses on whether respondent abused              
          his discretion in rejecting petitioner’s OIC.  Sego v.                      
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).                                     






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

Last modified: March 27, 2008