Edward H. and Anne G. Harrell - Page 14

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011