- 31 -
son) in Wash D.C. * * * Claims income of 4342 vs 5659
living expenses. However, TP reported AGI of 87,163 in
‘04; 345,165 in ‘03; 216,074 in ‘02.
CONCLUSION: Does not appear to be a valid offer
on the basis of DATC: not everything is on the table,
and his income and residence seem extravagant. Next
step: do preliminary investigation and if RCP exceed
liability of 264,457, conclude investigation and report
findings to Appeals.
* * * * * * *
* * * Claims declining income, but no evidence provided
and research indicates “fluctuating” income. [Repro-
duced literally.]
On September 6, 2005, the second offer specialist sent
petitioner a letter (second offer specialist’s September 6, 2005
letter). In that letter, the second offer specialist stated in
pertinent part:
I have been assigned to investigate your offer in
compromise dated 06/24/2005. I have completed a pre-
liminary analysis of your offer, after reviewing the
information you provided. My analysis shows that you
have the ability to pay your liability in full within
the time provided by law, based on the following compu-
tations:
Total net equity in assets: $372,231.00
Total future income value: $607,296.00
Total ability to pay: $979,527.00
Balance due (as of 08/15/2005) $264,457.49
Amount you offered: $139,776.00
Copies of my worksheets are enclosed for you[r] review.
If you disagree, you may provide additional documenta-
tion showing that the figures are incorrect. You may
also provide any other information you believe I should
consider in making my recommendation as to whether to
accept your offer.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008