- 13 -
whether it is proper for the Commissioner to
proceed with the collection action as determined
in the notice of determination, and whether the
type and/or method of collection chosen by the
Commissioner is appropriate. See, e.g.,
Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119
(2003) (challenge to appropriateness of
collection reviewed for abuse of discretion).
In order for petitioner to prevail under the abuse
of discretion standard, it is not enough for us to
conclude that we would not have authorized collection;
we must conclude that, in authorizing collection, the
Appeals officer has exercised her discretion “‘arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact’”. Estate
of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412, 449 (1993) (quoting
Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1084 (1988)).
We agree with respondent that the subject
determination is to be reviewed using the abuse of
discretion standard of review. As to tax year 1991,
petitioner received a notice of deficiency, and, thus, he
was not eligible to challenge the existence or amount of
the underlying tax liability with respect to that year in
the CDP hearing. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). As to tax years
1996, 1998, and 1999, petitioner did not receive a notice
of deficiency, nor did he otherwise have an opportunity to
dispute his underlying tax liability for any of those
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011