- 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