- 7 -
for an abuse of discretion under section 6330(d)(1), generally we
consider only arguments, issues, and other matters that were
raised at the section 6330 hearing or otherwise brought to the
attention of the Appeals Office. Magana v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 488, 493 (2002); see also sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5,
Proced. & Admin. Regs. Whether an abuse of discretion has
occurred depends upon whether the exercise of discretion is
without sound basis in fact or law. See Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess
Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 367, 371 (1995).
III. The Parties’ Arguments
By the petition, petitioner assigns error to Mr. O’Shea’s
determination that collection by levy of the unpaid tax should
proceed. In support of his assignments, petitioner avers that
(1) acceptance of an offer in compromise was in the best interest
of respondent and petitioner, and (2) respondent improperly and
prematurely concluded petitioner’s section 6330 hearing (the
hearing). At trial, petitioner abandoned all issues raised in
the petition except that Mr. O’Shea erred by prematurely
concluding the hearing. To prove that Mr. O’Shea acted
prematurely, petitioner asks us to consider extenuating
circumstances that prevented him from meeting deadlines imposed
by Mr. O’Shea.
Respondent counters that Mr. O’Shea did not prematurely
conclude the hearing and he did not abuse his discretion in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011