Robert and Grace Bergevin - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
               Petitioners’ primary arguments were that, at 71 and 70 years           
          of age, they were approaching retirement age; Mr. Bergevin had              
          special health problems; and, after retirement, they would have             
          negative cashflow.  Petitioners presented projections claiming              
          that they would need to retain most of their asset equity to meet           
          their ordinary and necessary living expenses over the following             
          5 years.  The settlement officer responded in part:                         
               The Bergevin Asset Equity Calculator presented by your                 
               representative’s firm, though an illustration commonly                 
               presented as a contention in an Effective Tax                          
               Administration offer, is non-persuasive.  It’s based on                
               the erroneous premise that the Internal Revenue Service                
               is charged with making certain taxpayers have                          
               sufficient assets to fund future living expenses.  To                  
               agree with this assumption is to conclude that absent                  
               independent wealth no one over the age of 60 should                    
               have to pay any federal tax because he/she will need                   
               such funds for future retirement living expenses.                      
               Congress has made no such exception and IRS, as the                    
               revenue collecting arm of the United States, has no                    
               role in such a social issue.  General offer guidelines                 
               require the IRS examiner to make a reasonable                          
               determination as to necessary living expenses and                      
               Effective Tax Administration guidelines further require                
               the examiner to make a reasonable determination as to                  
               future living expenses within the overall context of                   
               settlement, but the examiner is not required to ensure                 
               the existence level presented by your representative at                
               the practical disregard for the tax debt.  The examples                
               in Internal Revenue Manual 5.8.11 in no way present                    
               such a requirement.                                                    
               The taxpayers are each of retirement age.  If one or                   
               both retire, their household income would decrease                     
               along with the expense allowances for Taxes and                        
               Transportation.  Health Care expenses would likely                     
               increase.  The IRM allows a continuing Transportation                  
               Operating expense of $200 once the loan on the 2002                    
               Toyota Camry is paid.  Because of the uncertainties and                
               complexities involved in this case, I used a PV factor                 
               of 24 (months) instead of the standard 48 (months) in                  






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008