- 5 -
The Court must decide whether petitioner is entitled to
relief from the Appeals officer’s determination. Where the
underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews
that issue de novo. Where the underlying tax liabilities are not
at issue, as in this case, this Court reviews the determination
under an abuse of discretion standard. Sego v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 604 (2000). 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).
The record does not support a finding that there was an
abuse of discretion by the Appeals officer in this case. The
Appeals officer determined, upon review of petitioner’s financial
situation, that his monthly payment should be increased over the
amount that was currently being levied upon. The Appeals officer
also declined to release the levy and accept the monthly amounts
as an installment obligation. Petitioner has not satisfied the
Court that this determination constituted an abuse of discretion.
Consequently, the Appeals officer’s determination is sustained.
The Court notes, however, petitioner’s contention that
circumstances changed in his financial situation after the
hearing before the Appeals officer, and, because of these changed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011