- 40 -
sanctioned in the IRM, could not be used. On this point, suffice
it to say that petitioners’ representative during the
administrative process expressed concurrence in the
unavailability of an offer-in-compromise, and petitioners never
submitted an actual offer, a concrete proposal for Mr. Skidmore
to consider. Discretion typically cannot be exercised, much less
abused, in the abstract. See, e.g., Kendricks v. Commissioner,
124 T.C. 69, 79 (2005); Neugebauer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-292.
Finally, petitioners frame challenges to the determinations
in issue on the dictates of section 6330(c)(3)(C). They
summarize their allegations in this regard as set forth below:
In both Notices of Determination, the Appeals
Officer recognizes that the petitioners had
“significant financial problems.” * * * Levies would
only serve to harass the taxpayers, jeopardize full
collection by scaring off customers/clients (who
receive notices of levy) and make remaining in
compliance impossible. In his Notices of
Determination, the Appeals Officer did not offer any
explanation or analysis why the IRS needs the most
intrusive collection possible, did not justify why
liquidation of the business was necessary to ensure
collection, or detail why the plaintiff’s offer of
collection alternatives was not appropriate (other than
the compliance issue which was addressed in the
petitioners’ November 17, 2003 letter). The Appeals
Officer simply did not consider the impact that his
determinations would have on these taxpayers, and did
not perform the required balancing test. By neglecting
to consider the impact of its determination on the
plaintiff, the Appeals Office was unable to
legitimately examine whether the collection action was
more intrusive than necessary.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011