-5-
genuine issue as to any material fact and that this case is ripe
for summary judgment.
We review the Appeals officer’s determination for abuse of
discretion. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001);
Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120 (2001). The
determination of an Appeals officer must take into consideration:
(1) The verification that the requirements of applicable law and
administrative procedures have been met, (2) issues raised by the
taxpayer, and (3) whether any proposed collection action balances
the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the
legitimate concern of the person that any collection be no more
intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c)(3). We review the
Appeals officer’s exercise of discretion on the basis of the
arguments and information available to the Appeals officer when
the discretion was exercised. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
604, 612 (2000).
Petitioner’s sole argument is that Appeals erred in denying
petitioner’s request for an installment agreement. We disagree.
Given that petitioner had commingled its funds as discussed, was
out of compliance with its filing requirements, and had filed
with the Commissioner an incomplete Form 433, we do not believe
that the Appeals officer abused her discretion in denying that
request.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011