Judy Hedrick Blosser - Page 7
- 7 -
submission of an earlier statement, and we have upheld
determinations based on this policy. Etkin v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-245; 2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH),
sec. 22.214.171.124(8), at 17,654.
Respondent argues that when a settlement officer follows the
prescribed guidelines in determining whether a collection
alternative is acceptable, the settlement officer’s conclusion
will be considered reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. In
support of this argument, respondent cites Moorhous v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-183, Rodriguez v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-153, and Schenkel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
Petitioner correctly points out that these cases address
whether the Appeals Office abused its discretion by refusing
offers-in-compromise (OICs). Petitioner did not make an OIC but
requested a collection alternative-- that her account be placed
on CNC status. However, we disagree that these cases are
distinguishable, although sections 7122(e) and 6159(e)
specifically require the Secretary to establish procedures for
administrative review of rejections of OICs and terminations of
installment agreements, while there is no statutory mandate for
establishing procedures for placing a taxpayer’s account on CNC
status. We see no reason, however, to hold the Appeals Office to
a higher standard when considering collection alternatives from a
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 10, 2007