- 9 -
chosen by the Commissioner is appropriate. See, e.g., Swanson v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 119 (2003) (challenge to
appropriateness of collection reviewed for abuse of discretion).
In order for a taxpayer to prevail under the abuse of
discretion standard, it is not enough for the Court to conclude
that the Court would not have authorized collection; the Court
must conclude that, in authorizing collection, the Appeals
officer has exercised discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or
without sound basis in fact. Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 412, 449 (1993); accord Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1079, 1084 (1988). An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision
is based upon an erroneous legal standard or on a clearly
erroneous finding of fact. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1049
(9th Cir. 1999).
In response to their request for an Appeals hearing,
petitioners were afforded a conference with AO Cleveland via
several telephone calls. Petitioners contended during the
conference that the collection was inappropriate because all
outstanding taxes were paid in accordance with the confirmed plan
in the consolidated bankruptcy case.
In support of their argument, petitioners presented as
evidence a statement of account dated September 21, 1999, in
which the IRS determined that petitioners had an overpayment of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007