- 54 -
could proceed, the Appeals officer should have obtained the
guidance he needed from the National Office before he made his
determination in this case.
An Appeals officer is required by section 6330(c)(3) to
consider “whether any proposed collection action balances the
need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate
concern of the person that any collection action be no more
intrusive than necessary.” Until the Appeals officer had fully
explored whether and under what circumstances he had authority to
reinstate petitioner’s offer-in-compromise, it was impossible for
the Appeals officer to conduct the balancing analysis that
section 6330(c)(3) requires. Coupled with the Appeals officer’s
reluctance to fully explore the facts regarding petitioner’s
compliance with the terms and conditions of the offer-in-
compromise, which the majority discusses at length, the failure
to obtain the necessary guidance from the National Office
supports a conclusion that the balancing required by section
6330(c)(3) did not occur and that the Appeals officer abused his
discretion in upholding the proposed collection action.
LARO and WHERRY, JJ., agree with this concurring opinion.
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011