- 12 -
in determining whether Mr. O’Shea abused his discretion more or
less probable–-because he was never notified of the extenuating
circumstances that are the subject of the testimony.3
Because the testimony is irrelevant, it is inadmissible.
See Fed. R. Evid. 402.
D. Conclusion
Respondent’s objection to the testimony is sustained.
V. Abuse of Discretion
A. Introduction
We are left to determine whether Mr. O’Shea abused his
discretion in determining that respondent may proceed by levy to
collect the unpaid tax. Petitioner claims that he did because he
prematurely concluded the hearing.
B. Discussion
In Clawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-106, fewer than
3 months passed between the taxpayer’s filing a request for a
section 6330 hearing concerning a proposed levy and an adverse
determination by an Appeals officer. Approximately 1 month
passed after the Appeals officer’s offer of a telephonic hearing
3 Nor has petitioner offered any excuse for his failure to
explain to Mr. O’Shea his difficulties in complying with Mr.
O’Shea’s Sept. 2, 2003, deadline when compliance with that
deadline became problematic. Cf. Magana v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 488, 494 (2002) (unusual illness or hardship or other
special circumstances may justify an exception to the general
rule that, in reviewing for an abuse of discretion under sec.
6330(d)(1), the Court will not consider issues not raised at the
sec. 6330 hearing).
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