- 31 -
regard to the hearing, conducted with petitioners’
representative, close as follows:
We discussed the financials and my conclusions. He
could name no specific modifications to expenses. He
had no response to my statement that it appeared the
941s were overdue. We agreed this TP needed an OIC,
but I explained why he could not qualify now. Rep.
said he agreed they would have to look down the road
for an OIC in the future. He wanted a Determination
Letter, and will surely appeal to Tax Court, just for
delay. He did not name any respect in which he
disagreed with my findings.
On this record, and even assuming that section 6330(b)(3)
subsumes a requirement of impartiality in a broad or generalized
sense, the Court is satisfied that Mr. Skidmore conducted a
thorough review of the 2001 and 2002 years that belies
allegations of being tainted by prejudice.
C. Appropriateness of the Collection Determinations
Having concluded that alleged procedural shortcomings do not
preclude judicial review or otherwise invalidate the
determinations at issue, the Court turns to whether the
determinations to proceed with collection should be sustained on
the merits. At the outset, it should be reiterated that with the
settlement by the parties of the controverted additions to tax,
no issue of underlying liability remains in dispute.
Accordingly, we review respondent’s determinations to proceed
with collection for abuse of discretion. Action constitutes an
abuse of discretion under this standard where arbitrary,
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011