- 9 -
that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary”.
Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C). At the CDP hearing, petitioners did not
argue that any portion of their outstanding tax liability for
1994 is uncollectible. Because petitioners do not dispute the
underlying tax liability, we review respondent’s determination
for an abuse of discretion. Sec. 6330(d); Goza v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). An abuse of discretion occurs when
the Commissioner takes action that is arbitrary or capricious,
lacks a sound basis in law, or is not justifiable in light of the
facts and circumstances. Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079,
1084 (1988).
Petitioners argue that respondent’s actions amounted to an
abuse of discretion because petitioners were not notified of
their default, and respondent’s Appeals officer unreasonably
denied petitioners’ request at the CDP hearing that the terms of
the underlying OIC be reinstated. For the reasons stated below,
we find that there was no abuse of discretion in this case.
Notice of Default
Petitioners assert that respondent did not provide them with
notice of default before a Notice of Federal Tax Lien was issued.
The OIC Case history shows that when petitioners failed to pay
the $5,000 due on September 27, 1997, the Commissioner’s
collections personnel contacted petitioners by letter dated
October 6, 1997, whereby the Commissioner applied interest of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011