- 7 -
underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we review the
determination de novo. E.g., Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176,
181-182 (2000). Where the underlying tax liability is not at
issue, we review the determination for abuse of discretion. Id.
at 182. Whether an abuse of discretion has occurred depends upon
whether the exercise of discretion is without sound basis in fact
or law. See Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, 104
T.C. 367, 371 (1995).
II. Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner argues that, because petitioner was not granted a
face-to-face interview, Mr. McNichol abused his discretion by
determining that collection of the unpaid liabilities by levy was
proper. Respondent answers that petitioner received an adequate
hearing by telephone and exchange of correspondence and declined
a face-to-face interview when, on October 12, 2001, such an
interview was offered.
III. Discussion
We decide whether, before Appeals determined to proceed by
levy with collection of the unpaid liabilities, Appeals Officer
McNichol accorded petitioner a fair hearing, as required by
section 6330(b)(1). Procedures for the conduct of collection due
process hearings are set forth in section 301.6330-1(d), Proced.
& Admin. Regs. As set forth above, section 301.6330-1(d), Q&A-D6
and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs., provides that, although a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011