- 10 -
contentions regarding items such as deductions for 1997 are not
properly at issue and cannot be addressed here. Petitioners have
also expressly conceded any challenge to the balance due for
1996. We therefore review respondent’s determination solely for
abuse of discretion.
III. Review for Abuse of Discretion
With respect to issues subject to review in collection
proceedings for abuse of discretion, petitioners have at no time
raised a spousal defense. Nor have they offered any specific,
concrete collection alternatives. Although petitioners in their
petition generally allude to the possibility of selling or
mortgaging real property, they have not proposed any actual plan
or arrangements for satisfying their tax liabilities. They also
apparently broached at their Appeals hearing but failed to follow
through on borrowing funds to pay a portion of the debt. Hence,
the record does not reveal that respondent inappropriately
rejected any bona fide collection alternative.
Concerning challenges to the appropriateness of collection
actions, the petition complains about intrusiveness. To the
extent that this complaint pertains to the levy action, the issue
is not before us. To the extent that the complaint can be
interpreted to encompass the lien action, we conclude that, in
light of the absence of any definite collection alternatives, the
filing of a lien properly balances the competing concerns of
efficient collection and intrusiveness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011