Kevin Thompson - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               In conclusion, petitioner was given an opportunity to raise            
          relevant issues at his hearing, at trial, and on brief.  In his             
          correspondence with the Appeals Office petitioner maintained                
          frivolous and groundless arguments.  Petitioner has not raised a            
          spousal defense, made a valid challenge to the appropriateness of           
          the collection action, or offered any collection alternatives.              
          We hold that a remand for a new hearing is unnecessary, and that            
          respondent’s determination to proceed with collection was not an            
          abuse of discretion.                                                        

                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             for respondent.                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  

Last modified: May 25, 2011