- 25 -
reasonably expect to collect on petitioners’ liabilities. Mr.
Conte concluded that respondent was likely to receive more in the
distribution from the bankruptcy than from petitioners’ offer-in-
compromise. Further, Mr. Conte determined that accepting
petitioners’ offer would risk this expected greater distribution.
We find petitioners’ offer-in-compromise was not rejected solely
on the basis of the amount offered.
We are not unsympathetic to petitioners’ situation as they
ultimately had no control over when any distribution from the
bankruptcy would be made. Since then, petitioners’ financial
outlook has improved dramatically. Mr. Salazar is now employed
as a manager of a restaurant and has begun receiving Social
Security benefits. Mrs. Salazar completed law school and now
works as an attorney. Thus, while the $9,024.25 offer-in-
compromise may have been the limit of what petitioners could pay
in 2004, when Mr. Salazar submitted a second offer-in-compromise
during the second collection review hearing with respect to his
employment tax liabilities, respondent determined that Mr.
Salazar was then in a position to pay the entirety of his
outstanding employment tax liabilities. Petitioners have not
presented any argument or evidence to the Court to suggest that
respondent’s rejection of this second offer-in-compromise was an
abuse of discretion.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008