- 16 -
set forth below, we sustain Luhmann’s determination whether or
not we consider the additional evidence.
The sole issue raised by petitioners at their section 6330
hearing was an offer of a collection alternative. The collection
alternative proposed by petitioners involved postponing the levy
to allow petitioners to sell the Cape Coral property at some
unspecified point in the future for its market value,
approximately $2,700,000. (As of the time of trial in September
2003, the Cape Coral property had not been sold.)
Petitioners argue that Luhmann abused his discretion by
rejecting their proposed collection alternative because he failed
to take into consideration the impact of the events of
September 11, 2001, on petitioners’ ability to sell the Cape
Coral property. Moreover, petitioners argue that Luhmann abused
his discretion by sustaining the proposed levy because he (1) did
not request updated financial information from petitioners in his
letter of September 27, 2002; (2) did not give greater
consideration to the impact of the order of permanent injunction
on petitioners’ ability to pay their income tax liabilities for
1999 and 2000; (3) did not include any notes from his telephonic
meeting with McKinnon on October 21, 2002, in the administrative
record; and (4) reached his decision to sustain the proposed levy
in “barely one month” from the time that he contacted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011