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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: March 27, 2008