Jerry D. Criner - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
          action.  In the determination, the hearing officer must confirm             
          that he or she took into consideration the verification presented           
          under section 6330(c)(1).  Sec. 6330(c)(3)(A); sec. 301.6320-               
          1(e), Proced. & Admin. Regs.  In addition, the determination must           
          take into consideration any issues appropriately raised by the              
          taxpayer, offers by the taxpayer for collection alternatives, and           
          whether the disputed collection action represents a balance                 
          between the Government’s need for efficient collection of taxes             
          and the taxpayer’s concerns regarding the intrusiveness of the              
          proposed collection action.  Sec. 6330(c).  If the taxpayer                 
          disagrees with the hearing officer’s determination, the taxpayer            
          has the right to seek judicial review of the determination by               
          appealing to this Court or, if this Court lacks jurisdiction over           
          the underlying tax liability, to a Federal District Court.  Sec.            
          6330(d).                                                                    
               If the taxpayer files a timely petition for judicial review,           
          the applicable standard of review depends upon whether the                  
          underlying tax liability is at issue.  Where the underlying tax             
          liability is not at issue, the Court will review the Appeals                
          officer’s determination for abuse of discretion.  Sego v.                   
          Commissioner, supra at 610.                                                 
               In his amended petition, petitioner enumerates a plethora of           
          “errors” allegedly committed by the Appeals Office in making its            
          determination upholding the nominee lien filed against the                  






Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011