- 4 -
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000); Wooten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-113. In so doing, we do not conduct an independent review
of what would be an appropriate collection alternative. Van
Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-346. We review only
whether the Appeals officer’s determination was arbitrary,
capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral
v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Under section 6330, a taxpayer is entitled to a hearing in
which he or she may raise any relevant issue relating to the
unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including offers of collection
alternatives such as an offer in compromise. Sec. 6330(b) and
(c)(2). In the present case, petitioner appears to contend that
respondent should not proceed with collection because of abuses
she and her family have suffered by various Government agencies.
Petitioner does not otherwise present any argument that the
Appeals officer’s actions were an abuse of discretion.
On the basis of the information considered by the Appeals
officer, we cannot conclude that the Appeals officer’s
determination to proceed with collection action was an abuse of
discretion. See Van Vlaenderen v. Commissioner, supra; Crisan v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-318; Willis v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-302; O’Brien v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-290;
Schulman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-129. Indeed, when the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011