- 8 - prevail, a taxpayer must prove that the Commissioner exercised this discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Petitioner never challenged the appropriateness of the collection action, and he did not offer any collection alternative. His objections to the motion for summary judgment were frivolous. Additionally, petitioner did not properly assert the Fifth Amendment privilege. But in any event, in a civil tax case, the taxpayer must accept the consequences of asserting the Fifth Amendment and cannot avoid the burden of proof by claiming the privilege and attempting to convert “the shield * * * which it was intended to be into a sword”. United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 758 (1983); see Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-12; Traficant v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 501 (1987), affd. 884 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102, affd. 63 Fed. Appx. 375 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner did not raise any factual dispute showing that respondent’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in law. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion when respondent sustained the proposed levy to collect petitioner’s unpaid income tax liability for 2001.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011