- 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