- 15 -
settlement officer even though it is not part of the
administrative record.
In Robinette v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 85 (2004), we held
that when reviewing the Commissioner’s determination pursuant to
section 6330 the evidence we may consider is not limited to the
administrative record. For the reasons stated in Robinette,
respondent’s objection is overruled. Id.
B. The Controversy Before The Court
Petitioner claims that the settlement officer’s sustaining
the nominee liens was an abuse of discretion. Petitioner argues
that we should also review respondent’s return/rejection of the
OIC. Petitioner claims that the OIC was a collection alternative
that was raised and considered during the hearing. Petitioner
argues that respondent abused his discretion in his determination
to “reject” the OIC by proceeding with collection while
“reconsideration” of the OIC was pending.
Respondent contends that the only issue before us is the
sustaining of the nominee liens, and petitioner lacks standing to
challenge respondent’s determination on this issue. Respondent
claims that the settlement officer was assigned two separate
requests for Appeals consideration: (1) The section 6330 hearing
(regarding the nominee liens), and (2) the appeal of respondent’s
rejection of the OIC. Respondent asserts that the settlement
officer’s decision to return the OIC to Compliance for additional
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011