- 13 -
clearly unlawful, or without sound basis in fact or law.” Ewing
v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 39 (2004); see also Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Review for abuse of
discretion includes “any relevant issue relating to the unpaid
tax or the proposed levy”, including “challenges to the
appropriateness of collection actions” and “offers of collection
alternatives” such as offers in compromise. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).
Questions about the appropriateness of the collection action
include whether it is proper for the Commissioner to proceed with
the collection action as determined in the notice of
determination, and whether the type and/or method of collection
chosen by the Commissioner is appropriate. See, e.g., Swanson v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003).
As previously noted, offers in compromise are a specifically
mentioned collection alternative, and they are therefore reviewed
under an abuse of discretion standard. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii).
Additionally, whether respondent may proceed with collection of
petitioner’s unpaid liabilities is a challenge to the
appropriateness of collection. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A)(ii);
Swanson v. Commissioner, supra.
Therefore, had petitioner raised the issue of the rejection
of her offer in compromise in her petition to this Court, we
would still hold summary judgment to be appropriate because there
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011