- 7 -
issue. Sec. 6330(d).4 Where the validity of the underlying tax
liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter
de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). The Court reviews
any other administrative determination for an abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v.
Commissioner, supra at 182. An abuse of discretion has occurred
if the “Commissioner exercised * * * [his] discretion
arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or
law.” Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Petitioner does not dispute the existence or amounts of the
underlying tax liabilities. Accordingly, the Court’s standard of
review is abuse of discretion.
B. Review for Abuse of Discretion
Among the issues that may be raised at the Appeals Office
and are reviewed for an abuse of discretion are “challenges to
the appropriateness of collection” and “offers of collection
alternatives” such as an offer-in-compromise. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(A). The Court does not conduct an independent review
of what would be an acceptable offer-in-compromise; rather it
gives due deference to the Commissioner’s discretion. Murphy v.
Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005); Woodral v. Commissioner,
4Determinations made after Oct. 16, 2006, are appealable
only to the Tax Court. See Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub.
L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011