- 7 -
alternative means of collection such as an offer in compromise.
Sec. 6330(b) and (c)(2).2
In this case, petitioners submitted an OIC, which was
rejected by respondent. There is no information concerning the
contents of the OIC or the rejection thereof. Given this
circumstance, we cannot conclude that the rejection of the OIC
was an abuse of discretion by respondent. Van Vlaenderen v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-346; Crisan v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-318.
While petitioners wanted their tax liabilities placed in
CNC status and IRS procedures indicate that such status is a
collection alternative in response to a levy action, see 2
Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec. 5.16.1.2.1 at
17,804, we note that there is no levy in this case. In addition,
it is clear that respondent asked petitioners on more than one
2 Petitioners complain that the Appeals officer improperly
prohibited a recording of the Appeals hearing. Sec. 7521(a)(1)
provides that “upon advance request” of the taxpayer an IRS
officer or employee shall permit the taxpayer to make an audio
recording. Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8 (2003).
Petitioners do not appear to dispute respondent’s assertion that
petitioners did not comply with the statute and IRS guidelines
requiring advance notice of intent to record. See Notice 89-51,
1989-1 C.B. 691. Given that the hearing occurred, and that
petitioners do not assert that they raised collection
alternatives that were not considered by, or were not reflected
in the case activity records of, the Appeals officer, we do not
consider the issue of recording to be relevant to our
consideration. Petitioners simply have not claimed or shown any
prejudice in the failure to permit recording. See Frey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-87; Durrenberger v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2004-44; Brashear v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
196; Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011