- 16 -
research was separate and apart from the hearing and the Court
does not have jurisdiction over this action. Respondent argues
that although Compliance subsequently returned the OIC to
petitioner, petitioner cannot contest the return of the OIC by
Compliance because the Court does not have jurisdiction to review
Compliance’s “determination” to return the OIC. Respondent
alternatively9 contends that the issue before the Court is
whether the settlement officer abused his discretion in returning
the OIC to Compliance.
As discussed below, we conclude that we can review
respondent’s determination regarding the OIC; i.e., to leave the
nominee liens in place, and essentially reject the OIC, while the
OIC was supposed to be investigated further.
C. Petitioner Raised the OIC as a Collection Alternative
Respondent admits that at the hearing petitioner proposed
consideration of the OIC, and petitioner submitted additional
information to support the OIC. Mr. Blais, the settlement
officer who conducted the hearing, testified that the focus of
the hearing was whether petitioner’s case could be settled
through an OIC.
We conclude that pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii)
petitioner raised the OIC as a collection alternative at the
9 Although respondent did not do so, we characterize this
as an alternative argument.
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