- 9 -
Collection System”. Under these circumstances, we believe the
Appeals officer’s decision not to review petitioner’s offer in
compromise was an abuse of his discretion and denied petitioner
her right to a fair hearing under section 6330.
Where a taxpayer is not afforded a proper opportunity for a
hearing under section 6330, the Court can remand the case to the
Appeals office to hold a hearing if we “believe that it is either
necessary or productive”. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
183, 189 (2001); Day v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-30. In the
present case, petitioner claims that she has evidence that her
assets are of lower value than the Commissioner previously
believed and that she should not be required to pay her tax
obligations in full immediately. We believe there is a
possibility that a productive result may occur from remanding
petitioner’s case to the Appeals office for a proper hearing and
review of petitioner’s offer in compromise.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order
will be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011