- 4 -
to accept petitioner’s OIC 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). Petitioner appears to contend that the Appeals officer
should have conceded the tax liabilities for 1996 and 1997,
consistent with his concession of the tax liabilities for 1993,
1994, and 1995. Petitioner does not otherwise present any
argument that the Appeals officer’s rejection of the OIC was an
abuse of discretion.
The Appeals officer conceded petitioner’s tax liabilities
for 1993, 1994, and 1995 because the IRS had failed to maintain
the administrative files and the IRS records were insufficient to
pursue collection. However, this was not the situation with
respect to 1996 and 1997. Petitioner’s position simply makes no
sense given the disparate circumstances. Respondent’s rejection
of the OIC was based on an analysis of petitioner’s financial
information. On the basis of the information considered by the
Appeals officer, we cannot conclude that rejection of
petitioner’s OIC was an abuse of discretion. See Van Vlaenderen
v. Commissioner, supra; Crisan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011