- 10 -
Petitioner’s belief that the maximum amount of trustee
compensation allowed by law is not generally granted is based
upon his reading of a report that he says listed the average fees
for all bankruptcies by size for the years 1994 through 2000.
The report was not introduced into evidence.
Petitioner, who was represented by counsel during the
bankruptcy proceeding, appears to be under the impression that
the IRS was also required to represent his best interests in the
bankruptcy proceeding. The failure of respondent vigorously to
do so was an “abuse of discretion”, according to petitioner,
requiring the withdrawal of the notice of lien and the reduction,
by half, of his tax liability, and the abatement of interest and
the additions to tax.
Without deciding the issue, the Court accepts as accurate
petitioner’s testimony that the Insolvency Section operates under
certain tolerance levels, governed by the amount of tax owed, in
requesting its lawyers to file motions to compel in bankruptcy
cases. Petitioner has failed however, to describe how that
policy relates to an abuse of discretion by the Appeals officer
in this case.
To reach the conclusion advocated by petitioner would
require the Court at the outset to find that the Appeals
officer’s determination that the requirements of applicable law
or administrative procedure had been met was an abuse of
discretion. Yet by petitioner’s own admission, and the Court’s
determination, there is no law or administrative procedure that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011