Francis A. Morlino - Page 7

                                        - 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