Hector Castillo and Mooneem Castillo - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          II.  The Administrative Hearing                                             
               Before a levy may be made on any property or right to                  
          property, a taxpayer is entitled to notice of intent to levy and            
          notice of the right to a fair hearing before an impartial officer           
          of the IRS Appeals Office.  Secs. 6330(a) and (b), 6331(d).                 
          Taxpayers may raise challenges to “the appropriateness of                   
          collection actions” and may make “offers of collection                      
          alternatives, which may include the posting of a bond, the                  
          substitution of other assets, an installment agreement, or an               
          offer-in-compromise”.  Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).  The Appeals officer             
          must consider those issues, verify that the requirements of                 
          applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, and             
          must consider “whether any proposed collection action balances              
          the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the                     
          legitimate concern of the person [involved] that any collection             
          action be no more intrusive than necessary.”  Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C).           
               Here, petitioners stipulate that all administrative                    
          procedures have been met so the sole issue for our consideration            
          is whether respondent’s rejection of petitioners’ collection                
          alternative was an abuse of discretion.                                     
          III.  The Proposed Installment Agreement                                    
               The rejection of the proposed $1,500 monthly installment               
          agreement and determination that petitioners can pay $5,243 per             
          month was not arbitrary in light of petitioners’ financial                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011