Michael Stein - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
          See Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 183; Sego v. Commissioner,               
          supra; Carey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-209.                          
               Because the underlying tax liabilities are not properly at             
          issue, we review respondent’s determination for abuse of                    
          discretion.  See Goza v. Commissioner, supra; Sego v.                       
          Commissioner, supra at 610; Hodgson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.             
          1998-70, affd. 18 Fed. Appx. 571 (9th Cir. 2001).  We must decide           
          whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily,                    
          capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law.  See                   
          Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999); Fargo v.                   
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-13.                                           
               Petitioner argues he is not liable for the deficiencies                
          assessed by respondent.  Petitioner also argues respondent’s                
          Appeals Office abused its discretion in sustaining the filing of            
          the lien because:  (1) Respondent did not comply with the notice            
          requirements of section 6320(a); (2) respondent failed to comply            
          with petitioner’s request to conduct the section 6320 hearing in            
          person rather than by telephone; and (3) respondent is precluded            
          from filing the NFTL before petitioner appeals the rejection of             
          his installment agreement request.                                          
               As explained below, we hold petitioner is liable for the               
          deficiencies.  We hold respondent’s Appeals Office did not abuse            
          its discretion by upholding respondent’s filing of the lien.                








Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011