- 10 -
118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002). In deciding whether the Appeals Office
abused its discretion we must decide whether that office acted
arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact. See
Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002).
II. Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner asks us to void respondent’s determination
sustaining the proposed levy on the ground that, for the years in
issue, the section 6502 period for collection after assessment
(the section 6502 period) has expired. In support of his
position, petitioner argues that the 1991 extensions are invalid.
For 1982, petitioner additionally argues that the section 6502
period with respect to the June 6, 1983, tax assessment (the 1983
assessment) had expired before October 8, 1991, the date on which
the 1991 extensions were executed. Therefore, petitioner argues
that respondent’s determination was “arbitrary and capricious”,
thereby constituting an abuse of discretion. Respondent asks us
to reject petitioner’s arguments and sustain his determination.
III. Petitioner’s Relevancy Objections
As a preliminary matter, petitioner objects, on the basis of
relevancy, to our receiving into evidence two of the stipulated
exhibits: Exhibit 18-J, the TXMODA transcript reflecting
petitioner’s account for 1982, and Exhibit 19-J, the Transaction
Codes Pocket Guide, Document 11734, published by the IRS (the
transaction codes guide).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011