Lawrence Jay Russ - Page 8




                                        - 7 -                                         
          days.  The parties indicated that petitioner was prepared to                
          concede the case and to enter an installment agreement with                 
          respondent.  The Court granted respondent’s oral motion to                  
          withdraw the motion for summary judgment and ordered the parties            
          to submit a status report or decision documents within 90 days.             
               After the Court allowed additional time to submit the                  
          decision documents, the parties indicated that they had not been            
          able to execute a settlement agreement.  The Court again set the            
          case for trial commencing June 18, 2007.  Respondent filed                  
          another motion for summary judgment on June 4, 2007.                        
               When this matter was called for trial, petitioner made                 
          several oral motions, including:  (1) Motion for dismissal of tax           
          penalties; (2) motion for reduction of taxes due; (3) motion to             
          accept original offer-in-compromise; and (4) motion to dismiss              
          taxes and penalties for tax years 2001 and 2002.  The Court took            
          petitioner’s oral motions and respondent’s motion for summary               
          judgment, filed June 4, 2007, under advisement, and the case was            
          deemed submitted.                                                           
                                     Discussion                                       
               The parties dispute whether petitioner’s minimum monthly               
          payments on his credit card debt represent an allowable expense             
          against income available to pay taxes in consideration of an                
          offer-in-compromise.  Petitioner argues that not allowing such              
          expenses amounts to discrimination against taxpayers with                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008