- 5 -
of October 4, 2004, we denied respondent’s motion, allowing the
case to proceed to trial. However, when afforded the opportunity
at the time of trial to present meritorious arguments permitted
under section 6330(c)(2), petitioner chose to submit the case
fully stipulated, reiterating only the frivolous protester
arguments previously rejected in our order of October 4, 2004.
Because the underlying tax liability is not in dispute, we
review the Appeals officer’s actions under an abuse of discretion
standard. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Under the abuse
of discretion standard, a determination will be affirmed unless
the respondent took action that was arbitrary or capricious,
lacked sound basis in fact, or was not justifiable in light of
the facts and circumstances. Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1079, 1084 (1988).
Before a lien may be placed on any property or right to
property, a taxpayer is entitled to notice of intent to file a
lien and notice of the right to a fair hearing before an
impartial officer of the IRS Appeals Office. Sec. 6320(a) and
(b). Taxpayers may raise challenges to “the appropriateness of
collection actions” and may make “offers of collection
alternatives, which may include the posting of a bond, the
substitution of other assets, an installment agreement, or an
offer-in-compromise”. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). The Appeals officer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011