-7-
The Appeals officer satisfied the second requirement by
considering the issues raised by petitioners. The only issue
raised by petitioners was their inability to pay the liability in
full and, in that regard, petitioners requested that they be
allowed to satisfy the liability through an offer in compromise.
The Appeals officer addressed this request by reviewing the
information submitted, explaining that it was incomplete, and
asking for additional information. Petitioners failed to submit
a properly completed Form 656, Offer in Compromise, and the
required financial information for the consideration of their
request.
As to the third requirement, the Appeals officer properly
balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes through the
proposed levy against the concern that any collection action be
no more intrusive than necessary. Petitioners failed to provide
the information required in order to consider an alternative
collection action.
Throughout the proceeding, petitioners’ conduct demonstrates
propensity to delay the collection of their outstanding tax
liabilities. We sustain respondent’s determination regarding the
proposed levy as a permissible exercise of discretion. We note
as to the allegations set forth in the petition that petitioners
did receive a hearing under section 6330, that petitioners were
given an opportunity to participate in an offer in compromise,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011