- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011