- 14 -
Respondent contends that AO Martin considered the merits of
all issues raised by petitioners and, through her own research,
determined that petitioners’ position was without merit. In
addition, respondent claims that AO Martin considered
petitioners’ dischargeability argument. Respondent further
claims that petitioners offered no collection alternatives to AO
Martin, and when she proposed the collection alternative of an
installment agreement encompassing the entire amount of the
liabilities, petitioners rejected it. Respondent argues that
because “petitioners were given all their due process rights and
there has been no showing of an error in judgment or any other
abuse of discretion by the Appeals officer assigned to this CDP
case [conducted pursuant to section 6330], the determination that
the levy action was proper and appropriate should be sustained.”
Petitioners contend that AO Martin abused her discretion in
determining that “ex parte procedure rules did not apply” to
petitioners’ previous section 6330 hearing (relating to years not
here at issue) and AO Petrohovich’s rejection of the Offer in
Compromise. Petitioners further contend that
Appeals Officer Martin has failed to present an
adequate record for appellate review, and Appeals
Officer Martin lacks impartiality as being a former
member of the same office hearing the original
collection due process appeal [relating to years not
here at issue] and denial of * * * [petitioners’] Offer
in Compromise.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011