- 4 -
such tax liability.” Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Where the validity of the tax liability is not properly part
of the appeal, the taxpayer may challenge the determination of
the Appeals officer for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 609-610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at
181-182.
Questions about the appropriateness of the collection action
include whether it is proper for the Commissioner to proceed with
the collection action as determined in the notice of
determination, and whether the type and/or method of collection
chosen by the Commissioner is appropriate. See, e.g., Swanson v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003) (challenge to
appropriateness of collection reviewed for abuse of discretion).
In order for petitioner to prevail under the abuse of
discretion standard, it is not enough for the Court to conclude
that the Court would not have authorized collection; the Court
must conclude that, in authorizing collection, the Appeals
officer has exercised discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or
without sound basis in fact. Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 412, 449 (1993); accord Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1079, 1084 (1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011