- 41 -
The short answer to this challenge is that, as detailed
above, petitioners did not during the administrative process
establish the propriety of any alternative to counterbalance
against the proposed levies. The notices of determination so
communicate, observing that because petitioners did not present
any acceptable alternatives, it did not appear that any less
intrusive action would “meet the liability”. They explicitly
address the balancing analysis and appropriately highlight
several of the facts undergirding Mr. Skidmore’s conclusions.
Furthermore, petitioners’ contentions that Mr. Skidmore came to
these conclusions “summarily” are contradicted by the record.
The body of notes and correspondence compiled reveals instead
that the focus of Mr. Skidmore’s efforts throughout the entire
process centered upon attempting to obtain and evaluate
information concerning petitioners’ financial circumstances in
light of possible eligibility for collection alternatives. The
notes also make reference specifically to intrusiveness and his
thinking thereon. His eventual determinations that asking the
Government merely to wait and see did not afford a reasonable and
viable option were neither arbitrary, nor capricious, nor
baseless.
In conclusion, the facts of these cases do not establish any
abuse of discretion. The Court will sustain respondent’s
proposed collection actions as to taxable years 2000, 2001, and
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