- 7 -
factors but nevertheless making a clear error in judging their
weight. Henry v. INS, 74 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996).
Petitioner’s arguments are based upon his perception of how
respondent’s Insolvency Section handled his tax liabilities in
the bankruptcy proceeding. Petitioner voiced several complaints
during his testimony, including the “indifference” to his plight
exhibited by respondent’s Insolvency Section.
The main bone of contention, however, is his belief that the
chapter 7 trustee would have paid 50 percent of petitioner’s
outstanding tax liabilities, the unsecured priority claim, if
only respondent had filed a motion to compel payment before the
final distribution. Petitioner testified that the trustee told
him that he would not oppose, and would in fact recommend, the
partial payment. Petitioner further testified that he relayed
the trustee’s “offer” to the Insolvency Section and was informed
that under their guidelines, motions to compel would not be filed
in cases involving less than $50,000 of tax liability.
Petitioner asserts that the failure of the Insolvency
Section to file a motion to compel was an abuse of discretion.
Neither the trustee in petitioner’s bankruptcy proceeding nor any
employee of the Insolvency Section was called as a witness in
this case.
Court Review of the Determination
The Court reviews the actions of the Appeals officer who
conducted the hearing and issued the notice of determination in
this case. Section 6330 does not contemplate that the Court
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011