Joseph A. Loftus - Page 8

                                        - 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