- 6 -
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will
review the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Petitioner’s position is based solely on his alleged inabil-
ity to pay the unpaid liabilities for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
However, the record does not indicate that petitioner proposed
any collection alternatives to the Appeals officer.3 Nor does
petitioner propose any such alternatives to the Court. Based
upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that
respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in determining
to proceed with the collection action as determined in the notice
of determination with respect to petitioner’s taxable years
2(...continued)
failed to do so. We thus address only the argument that peti-
tioner advanced at the trial in this case.
3At trial, petitioner acknowledged that he did not submit an
offer in compromise to the Appeals officer. According to
petitioner,
I didn’t submit an offer in compromise to * * *
[the Appeals officer], nor did I submit a proposal
to pay based on my financial situation, which I
explained to him was pretty much hardship. I am
again still on limited income. I don’t see where
I have the extra money to make a payment plan. If
I set up a payment plan, I will more than likely
go into default.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011