Scott Roman - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          public confidence that the tax laws are being administered in a             
          fair and equitable manner; and (2) compromise will not undermine            
          compliance by taxpayers with the tax laws.  Sec. 301.7122-                  
          1(b)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.                                             
          II.  Analysis                                                               
               Nothing in the record indicates that petitioner has at any             
          time throughout the administrative or judicial proceedings                  
          attempted to challenge his underlying tax liability.                        
          Accordingly, we review respondent’s determination to proceed with           
          collection for abuse of discretion.  Action constitutes an abuse            
          of discretion under this standard where arbitrary, capricious, or           
          without sound basis in fact or law.  Woodral v. Commissioner, 112           
          T.C. 19, 23 (1999).                                                         
               In arguing that rejection of his offer was an abuse of                 
          discretion and deprived him of a fair hearing, petitioner focuses           
          on the “deadline” allegedly set by Mr. Kroll.  In his response to           
          respondent’s motion, petitioner makes what he characterizes as an           
          “equitable argument” and contends as follows:                               
               Settlement Officer Kroll should not have unilaterally                  
               decided on a “deadline” for submission of documents,                   
               and then not communicated the “deadline” to                            
               Petitioner’s counsel.  The administrative record                       
               reveals that the Settlement Officer made repeated                      
               requests for additional information, all of which                      
               except the last were responded to.  Additionally,                      
               Petitioner, through his counsel, responded to each                     
               request, and also responded when there was a delay in                  
               providing the documents responsive to the last request.                
               * * *                                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011