- 14 -
the instructions to the Appeals officer concerning, nor her
refusal to consider, petitioner’s arguments based on Form 23C
constituted an abuse of discretion.
2. Consideration and Balancing of Collection Alternatives
Petitioner next contends that the Appeals officer failed to
comply with section 6330(c)(3)(C), which requires the officer to
consider whether the proposed collection action balances the need
for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern
of the taxpayer that any collection action be no more intrusive
than necessary. This requirement was addressed in the Notice of
Determination which states: “The proposed levy action is
intrusive. However, where the taxpayer continues to challenge
the validity of the assessments there is no room to search for
alternative collection measures to alleviate the intrusiveness of
a levy action.” Neither in his request for a hearing nor at the
hearing did petitioner challenge the appropriateness of or offer
an alternative to the proposed levy. In these circumstances, we
7(...continued)
* * * * * * *
(3) Impartial officer.--The
hearing under this subsection shall
be conducted by an officer or
employee who has had no prior
involvement with respect to the
unpaid tax specified in subsection
(a)(3)(A) before the first hearing
under this section or section 6320.
A taxpayer may waive the
requirement of this paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011