- 7 -
discretion in rejecting an installment agreement on the separate
ground that petitioner was noncompliant with his current tax
obligations. See Orum v. Commissioner, 412 F.3d at 821.
Petitioner contends that the Appeals Office hearing was
closed “prematurely”. The regulations provide that there is no
period of time within which the Appeals Office must conduct a
section 6330 hearing or issue a notice of determination and state
in part: “Appeals will, however, attempt to conduct a * * *
[section 6330 hearing] and issue a Notice of Determination as
expeditiously as possible under the circumstances.” Sec.
301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E9, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
In Clawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-106, the
taxpayers sought to postpone a proposed levy to allow them time
to sell certain real estate. The Appeals officer waited only 9
days after conducting a telephone conference with the taxpayers’
representative before issuing an adverse determination. The
Court concluded that the Appeals officer did not abuse his
discretion, stating: “there is neither a requirement nor reason
that the Appeals officer wait a certain amount of time before
rendering his determination as to a proposed levy.” See also
Morlino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-203; Roman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-20.
Almost 3 weeks elapsed between petitioner’s August 31, 2004,
telephone conference with the Appeals officer and the issuance of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011