- 6 -
Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180-181 (2000).
If the underlying tax liability is not at issue, we review
respondent’s notice of determination under an abuse of discretion
standard. Sec. 6330(d)(1); Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488,
493 (2002); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001);
Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 609-610; Goza v. Commissioner,
supra at 181-182 (citing H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998),
1998-3 C.B. 755, 1020).
An abuse of discretion by respondent may be defined as an
action that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, clearly
unlawful, or lacking sound basis in law, taking into account all
the facts and circumstances. See, e.g., Thor Power Tool Co. v.
Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522, 532-533 (1979); Ewing v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 39-40 (2004); Swanson v. Commissioner,
121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003).
In a section 6330 hearing, respondent is required to verify
whether the requirements of all applicable laws and
administrative procedures have been met, to consider issues
raised by a taxpayer, and to determine whether the proposed
collection action is more intrusive than necessary. Sec.
6330(c)(3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011