- 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’ tax
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011