Jerry D. Criner - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
               arbitrary.                                                             
               (f) Respondent erred by determining that all                           
               applicable laws and administrative procedures to                       
               support his nominee lien action against Petitioner had                 
               been met, although he neither considered the                           
               applicability of the laws of the State of Oklahoma, nor                
               considered Petitioner’s status under those laws, with                  
               respect to the real property that is the subject of his                
               nominee Notice of Federal Tax Lien.                                    
               (g) Respondent erred by determining that                               
               Petitioner had not proposed reasonable collection                      
               alternatives to Respondent’s lien action.                              
               (h) Respondent erred by not considering, exploring,                    
               or eliciting from Petitioner, what collection actions                  
               less intrusive than lien action would balance the                      
               government’s need to efficiently collect the tax                       
               liabilities at issue with Petitioner’s legitimate                      
               concern that the collection action be made by the                      
               method least intrusive to him.                                         
               (i) With respect to the tax liability for the year                     
               1993, Respondent abused his discretion by determining                  
               it was appropriate to cause the filing, against certain                
               real property, of a nominee Notice of Federal Tax Lien                 
               with respect to Petitioner, when he had already caused                 
               the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against                     
               Petitioner for the year 1993.                                          
               (j) Respondent abused his discretion by asserting                      
               against Petitioner a nominee theory with respect to                    
               specific real property, the existence and ownership of                 
               which was known to Respondent at least four years prior                
               to the filing of his nominee Notice of Federal Tax                     
               Lien, yet which specific real property was never deemed                
               by him to be the property of Petitioner.                               
          The errors identified in paragraphs (a), (b), (i), and (j) were             
          not raised by petitioner at the hearing and were not considered             
          by the Appeals Office in its notice of determination.                       








Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011