Peter P. Baltic and Karen R. Baltic - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          reconsideration (which, we should note, no one doubts is a form             
          of challenge to their underlying tax liability).  The Baltics               
          contend that the Commissioner’s refusal was itself an abuse of              
          discretion.  We have already rejected this argument when a                  
          taxpayer urged waiting for an audit reconsideration.  Jones v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-142.  Adding a desire to wait for             
          consideration of an OIC-DATL as well adds nothing to the                    
          argument:  The settlement officer here was just heeding the                 
          exhortation of the applicable regulation to issue a notice of               
          determination as expeditiously as possible.  Sec. 301.6330-                 
          1(e)(3), Q&A-E9, Proced. & Admin. Regs.                                     
               The purpose of a CDP hearing is to balance the government’s            
          requirement for effective tax administration with the taxpayer’s            
          concern that collection be minimally intrusive.  By deciding to             
          hold off on collection by levy but preserve the government’s lien           
          priority while other employees of the IRS considered the Baltic’s           
          OIC-DATL and various late-filed returns, the Commissioner                   
          exercised discretion in a completely reasonable way, and so                 

                                             An order and decision in favor           
                                        of respondent will be entered.                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

Last modified: March 27, 2008