- 32 -
of Ms. Boudreau’s testimony is sustained in part and overruled in
part.
VI. Abuse of Discretion
A. Introduction
We must now decide whether Ms. Boudreau abused her
discretion in determining that respondent may proceed by levy to
collect the unpaid tax. Petitioner claims that Ms. Boudreau did,
because (1) acceptance of an offer in compromise was in the best
interests of respondent and petitioner and (2) Ms. Boudreau
improperly and prematurely concluded the hearing.
B. The Appeals Officer Did Not Err in Rejecting the Offer
in Compromise
We do not conduct an independent review of what would be an
acceptable offer in compromise. Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-163. The extent of our review is to determine whether
the Appeals officer’s decision to reject the offer in compromise
actually submitted by the taxpayer was arbitrary, capricious, or
without sound basis in fact or law. Skrizowski v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2004-229; Fowler v. Commissioner, supra; see Woodral
v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Ms. Boudreau concluded that petitioner could not pay his
liability (the 1992-2001 liability) in full and, therefore, did
not qualify for an offer in compromise based on effective tax
administration. Certainly, her conclusion about petitioner’s
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011