- 7 -
technical reason for doing so”. Despite this reluctance, we
nevertheless found that under the circumstances of this case, it
was an abuse of discretion to issue the Notice of Determination.
We acknowledge that the circumstances surrounding this case
are highly unusual. In large part because of the uncertainty as
to how the Supreme Court would resolve the equitable tolling
issue, petitioners were unwilling to accept a collection
alternative that required them to agree with respondent that
their 1991-93 tax liabilities were not discharged. As we stated
in Harrell v. Commissioner, supra,
at the time petitioners rejected AO Martin’s suggested
installment agreement, and at the time the Notice of
Determination was issued, there was sufficient reason
to raise a doubt as to petitioners’ tax liabilities for
1991, 1992, and 1993, so as to justify petitioners’
rejection of an installment agreement based in part
upon a concession of the 1991-93 liabilities.
By issuing the Notice of Determination at that time,
respondent effectively denied petitioners the opportunity to
present or consider collection alternatives that they might have
presented or accepted had they known the outcome of Young v.
United States, supra, before the issuance of the Notice of
Determination. If, under this alternative scenario, petitioners
had presented a collection alternative during the section 6330
hearing that was then rejected by respondent, petitioners would
have been able to petition this Court pursuant to section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011