- 17 - hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent’s determination included consideration of this issue.10 Sec. 6330(c)(3)(B) (the determination shall take into consideration the issues raised under section 6330(c)(2)--which includes offers of collection alternatives including OICs). Accordingly, we shall review whether respondent’s determination regarding the OIC was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact and law. Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163; see Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). D. Did Respondent Abuse His Discretion Regarding the OIC? 1. The OIC Was Not Fully Investigated Petitioner claims that the OIC was not fully investigated before it was essentially rejected. We agree. Mr. Blais admitted that the OIC needed further investigation before a decision on the OIC could be made because of its complexity and the lack of sufficient information to evaluate the OIC. Mr. Blais, in fact, returned the OIC for further investigation. Respondent, however, determined to leave the nominee liens in place before the further investigation of the OIC was completed. 10 If respondent’s determination did not include consideration of this issue, respondent would have abused his discretion by failing to follow the express provisions of sec. 6330 which require respondent to consider all issues raised at the hearing, including collection alternatives such as OICs, in making his determination.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