- 6 - correct. Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, we review respondent’s determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). From our review of the record, we conclude Mr. Kane attempted to help petitioners substantially by offering a reasonable payment amount with reasonable payment terms to satisfy substantial tax liabilities after appropriately applying the procedures available to petitioners. Pursuant to section 6330, petitioners are entitled to only one hearing during which they may raise any relevant issue relating to the proposed levy, including challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action and offers of collection alternatives. Sec. 6330(b)(2), (c)(2)(A). Respondent, in fact, held two hearings with petitioners, the first on August 3, 2001, with both petitioners present, and the second on November 9, 2001, with only Mr. Galvin present. Petitioners have, on six different occasions, defaulted on installment agreements entered into with respondent for the years in issue. We conclude Mr. Kane’s rejection of petitioners’ offer to pay $250 per month to satisfy tax liabilities in excess of $160,000 was reasonable. Respondent’s proposal for an offer in compromise to pay $721 per month for a 2-year period to fully satisfy petitioners’ taxPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011