- 7 -
Petitioner objects to the appropriateness of the proposed
collection action. Questions about the appropriateness of the
collection action include whether it is proper for the
Commissioner to proceed with the collection action as determined
in the notice of determination, and whether the type and/or
method of collection chosen by the Commissioner is appropriate.
See, e.g., Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003)
(challenge to appropriateness of collection reviewed for abuse of
discretion).
In order for petitioner to prevail under the abuse of
discretion standard, it is not enough for the Court to conclude
that the Court would not have authorized collection; the Court
must conclude that, in authorizing collection, the Appeals
officer has exercised discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or
without sound basis in fact. Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 412, 452 (1993); accord Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1079, 1084 (1988). It has been held that an agency can abuse its
discretion by neglecting a significant relevant factor, by giving
weight to an irrelevant factor, or by considering only the proper
factors but nevertheless making a clear error in judging their
weight. Henry v. INS, 74 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996).
Petitioner argues that he cannot pay any amount toward his
tax liabilities greater than his OIC. The Appeals officer
reviewed the financial information that petitioner submitted and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011