- 13 -
Mr. Karaszkiewicz initially stated he would try to supply the
materials and the March 26, 2003, date on which Mr. Karaszkiewicz
said the information would be “quickly” provided. Moreover, we
note that it is more than 2 years after petitioner’s initial
submission of an offer in compromise. In these circumstances,
and especially in light of the absence of any further
communication from petitioner to alter the implications of the
“quickly” language, waiting for 6 weeks falls within the bounds
of reasonableness.
Section 6330 entitles taxpayers to “a hearing”. No
statutory or regulatory provision requires that taxpayers be
afforded an unlimited opportunity to supplement the
administrative record. Nor are petitioner’s contentions
regarding lack of warning well taken where the record in this
case is replete with explicit deadlines that respondent
generously extended for petitioner’s benefit. The statute only
requires that a taxpayer be given a reasonable chance to be heard
prior to the issuance of a notice of determination. The
consideration of petitioner’s case thus did not fail to comply
with the terms for a fair hearing set forth in section 6330.
Consequently, we conclude that there was no abuse of
discretion in respondent’s decision to reject petitioner’s offer
in compromise. In absence of the requested information,
respondent was unable reasonably to determine that petitioner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011