- 26 -
3. Review for Abuse of Discretion
In light of the Court’s conclusions supra regarding
challenges to the underlying liabilities, disposition of this
case as to 1985 rests upon whether the record reflects an abuse
of discretion on the part of respondent in determining to proceed
with collection efforts in the form of levy. Action constitutes
an abuse of discretion under this standard where it is arbitrary,
capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). The Court considers
whether the Commissioner committed an abuse of discretion in
rejecting a taxpayer’s position with respect to any relevant
issues, including those items enumerated in section
6330(c)(2)(A); i.e., spousal defenses, challenges to the
appropriateness of the collection action, and offers of
collection alternatives.
Here, to the extent that petitioner’s apparent interest in a
collection alternative such as an installment agreement or offer
in compromise might pertain to 1985 as well as 1999, the record
reflects no abuse of discretion by respondent in deciding instead
to proceed with levy. To enable the Commissioner to evaluate a
taxpayer’s qualification for an installment agreement or offer in
compromise, and particularly in the face of allegations of
13(...continued)
would be hard pressed to declare that an abuse of discretion was
committed in relying on the outcome of the previous litigation.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011