- 6 -
Where the underlying tax liability is not at issue, as in
this case, this Court reviews the determination under an abuse of
discretion standard. Sego v. Commissioner, supra. An abuse of
discretion is defined as any action that is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious, clearly unlawful, or lacking sound
basis in law, taking into account all the facts and
circumstances. See, e.g., Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner,
439 U.S. 522, 532-533 (1979); Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C.
111, 119 (2003).
Petitioners received an appropriate hearing under section
6320(b). Day v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-30; Leineweber v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17; sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6,
Proced. & Admin. Regs. Respondent properly verified that the
requirements of applicable law and administrative procedures were
met and balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with
the legitimate concern of petitioners that the collection action
be no more intrusive than necessary. Petitioners have neither
alleged nor proven that respondent abused his discretion in
denying relief. On this record, the Court holds that there was
no abuse of discretion in sustaining the notice of intent to file
a Federal tax lien. Respondent, therefore, is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011