- 8 -
or judicially challenge the determinations therein; she even
offered to pay the tax liabilities under the installment method.
Petitioner, therefore, fully understood the consent to the
assessment. The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the
underlying tax liability under section 6330(d)(1). The only
issue is whether respondent committed an abuse of discretion in
determining that collection of petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 tax
liabilities should proceed. There is an abuse of discretion
where respondent’s action is arbitrary, capricious, or without
sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C.
19, 23 (1999).
Petitioner’s sole contention was that she does not owe the
taxes at issue. She did not, at the hearing, offer any
collection alternatives and asserted no spousal defenses. She
received an appropriate hearing for purposes of section
6330(b)(1). Day v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-30; Leineweber
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17; Dorra v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-16; sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin.
Regs. Respondent properly verified that the requirements of
applicable law and administrative procedures were met, and
respondent balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes
with the legitimate concern of petitioner that the collection
action be no more intrusive than necessary. On this record, the
Court holds that there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011