- 51 -
before us, we conclude that respondent complied with section
301.7122-1(d)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs., when respondent re-
turned to petitioner petitioner’s September 29, 2004 offer-in-
compromise.
On the record before us, we find that the settlement officer
did not abuse the settlement officer’s discretion by (1) not
accepting as petitioner’s RCP the amount calculated by the first
offer specialist in connection with petitioner’s September 29,
2004 offer-in-compromise and (2)(a) instead requiring petitioner
to submit a new, updated offer-in-compromise (i.e., petitioner’s
June 24, 2005 offer-in-compromise) accompanied by a new, updated
Form 433-A (i.e., petitioner’s June 24, 2005 Form 433-A) and
(b) determining as petitioner’s RCP an amount different from
petitioner’s RCP that the first offer specialist determined.
We address next petitioner’s second principal argument. In
petitioner’s response, petitioner argues that the settlement
officer abused the settlement officer’s discretion in calculating
petitioner’s RCP by using as the “future income” component of
that calculation an average of petitioner’s wage income for the
31(...continued)
disaster)[,] within 30 days from the date of this
letter you may contact * * * [the first settlement
officer] to request reconsideration of our decision to
close your offer. You should be prepared to discuss
specifics, provide verification of the circumstances
beyond your control and provide the information previ-
ously requested.
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008