Joseph A. Loftus - Page 11

                                        - 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