- 6 -
explained, petitioner argues that the IRS should be limited to
collecting half of the amount of the liability for which the
notice of lien was filed for 1996 and 1997. In addition, he
objects to the failure to pay addition to tax and the interest
that accrued on the assessments after his bankruptcy action. The
Court will treat petitioner’s arguments as challenges to the
collection action.
Challenges to Collection Action
Questions about the appropriateness of the collection action
include 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 a taxpayer to prevail under the abuse of
discretion standard, it is not enough for the Court to conclude
that the Court would not have authorized collection; the Court
must conclude that, in authorizing collection, the Appeals
officer has exercised discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or
without sound basis in fact. Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 412, 449 (1993); accord Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1079, 1084 (1988). It has been held that discretion can be
abused by neglecting a significant relevant factor, by giving
weight to an irrelevant factor, or by considering only the proper
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011