- 14 -
insufficient information to make any collection determination;
(3) Mr. Feist issued the notice of determination after being
assigned the case for only 2 months, “which was a grossly
inadequate period of time given the complexities of the case”;
and (4) Mr. Feist insisted on proceeding with the final hearing
even though Mr. Williams had not yet recovered his files.
The estate alleges that respondent failed to consider
adequately the administrative expenses of the estate. However,
the notice of determination indicates that Mr. Feist considered
all of the administrative expenses that the estate raised. The
Appeals officer determined that expenses relating to the class
action lawsuits were not appropriate expenses of the estate
because the estate did not initiate the litigation and did not
need to incur those expenses. The notice of determination also
indicates that Mr. Feist considered the administrative expenses
of the estate related to preparing the estate’s tax returns and
pursuing the collection hearing. Thus, the record reflects that
appropriate consideration was given to the administrative
expenses raised by the estate. Accordingly, the Court concludes
that respondent did not abuse his discretion in this regard.
The estate contends that respondent abused his discretion
because Ms. Clark lacked sufficient information to make a
collection determination, and Mr. Feist held the collection
hearing before Mr. Williams retrieved his files. “An Appeals
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007