- 5 -
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000). In so doing, we do
not conduct an independent review of what would be an acceptable
offer in compromise. Van Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-346. We review only whether the Appeals officer’s refusal
to accept the offer in compromise made by petitioner was
arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Under section 6330, a taxpayer is entitled to one hearing in
which he or she may raise any relevant issue relating to the
unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including offers of collection
alternatives such as an offer in compromise. Sec. 6330(b) and
(c)(2). In the present case, petitioner contends that respondent
should not have rejected her offer in compromise. The Appeals
officer’s determination was based on an analysis of the
information that petitioner submitted. On the basis of the
information considered by the Appeals officer, we cannot conclude
that rejection of petitioner’s offer in compromise was an abuse
of discretion. See Van Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, supra; Crisan
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-318; Willis v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-302; O’Brien v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
290; Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129. Petitioner’s
offer in compromise of $2,496 was based upon total “gross”
monthly income of $2,600 and “Other expenses” of $300 per month
for a watchdog. In determining the minimum acceptable offer of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011