- 16 -
explicit deadlines that respondent generously extended
for petitioner’s benefit.
The Court concludes that respondent did not abuse his discretion
by: (1) Failing to take into account information respondent
requested of the estate and that the estate failed to produce;
and (2) proceeding with the collection hearing despite the
estate’s lack of files. See Morlino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2005-203; Roman v. Commissioner, supra.
The estate also alleges that Mr. Feist spent a “grossly
inadequate period of time” considering the case. The regulations
promulgated under section 6330 provide that there is no period of
time within which the Appeals Office must conduct a collection
hearing or issue a notice of determination. The regulations
provide, in pertinent part, that while there is no set time
deadline to conduct the Appeals hearing, “Appeals will, however,
attempt to conduct a CDP hearing and issue a Notice of
Determination as expeditiously as possible under the
circumstances.” Sec. 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E9, Proced. & Admin.
Regs. “[T]here is neither requirement nor reason that the
Appeals officer wait a certain amount of time before rendering
his determination as to a proposed levy.” Clawson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-106; see Murphy v. Commissioner,
supra at 322; Manjourides v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-242;
Morlino v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007