- 5 -
Petitioner timely filed with this Court a Petition for Lien
or Levy Action Under Code Section 6330(d). The only relevant
issue raised is whether petitioner was denied an opportunity for
a fair and meaningful hearing under section 6330.3 Petitioner
contends that Settlement Officer Craca was not impartial, based
upon her letter dated November 19, 2002, denying postponement of
the hearing. Petitioner further contends that Settlement Officer
Craca should have postponed the hearing scheduled for November
21, 2002, to allow the attendance of petitioner’s tax return
preparer and to account for matters in his personal life.4
Discussion
This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination under section 6330. Sec. 6330(d).
Where, as here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is
not at issue, we review such determination for abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000).
3 As we indicated earlier, petitioner does not challenge
the existence or amount of the underlying tax liabilities for
1995 and 1996. Moreover, petitioner concedes that respondent
satisfied the verification requirement under sec. 6330(c)(1).
4 Petitioner also complains of delays by respondent. While
this may be an issue of concern in other cases, any delay by
respondent in the present case actually afforded petitioner ample
opportunity to effect his expressed desire to submit a collection
alternative. Petitioner cannot, on the one hand, complain about
not having enough time to prepare and file an offer in
compromise, and, on the other hand, complain about delays by
respondent that had no effect on petitioner’s ability to prepare
and file such offer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011