Arthur A. Lemann III and Roberta A. Lemann - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          contend that respondent arbitrarily refused to accept their                 
          proposed installment agreement and subsequent offer-in-                     
          compromise, opting instead to proceed with a levy.  They contend            
          that they could not agree to the Appeals officer's proposed                 
          installment agreement because they lacked the financial resources           
          and borrowing capacity to fulfill the terms of that agreement.              
          Moreover, they contend that the formula used by respondent to               
          determine the acceptable amount of an installment agreement or an           
          acceptable offer-in-compromise failed to account adequately for             
          petitioners' age, earning capacity, and poor financial                      
          circumstances.  Finally, they assert that respondent's                      
          determination to proceed with a levy does not balance the need              
          for efficient collection with their legitimate concern that the             
          collection action be no more intrusive than necessary, see sec.             
          6330(c)(3)(C), and accordingly is arbitrary and capricious.9                
               As petitioners have not challenged the validity of the                 
          underlying tax liability, we review respondent's determination to           
          proceed with collection for abuse of discretion.  Jones v.                  

               9 In the petition, petitioners also assert that respondent's           
          actions were "unduly punitive" in violation of petitioners'                 
          Eighth Amendment rights.  They do not mention this claim in their           
          opposition to respondent's motion for summary judgment, and we              
          deem it abandoned.  See Bradley v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 367,              
          370 (1993); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 226, 344              
          (1991); Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988).  In            
          any event, petitioners have not cited, and we are unaware of, any           
          authority suggesting that, where a taxpayer concedes that unpaid            
          taxes are due, the Commissioner's decision to collect those taxes           
          by means of his power to levy may violate the Eighth Amendment.             

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011