- 10 -
2005, despite the fact that petitioner claimed in her request for
a collection hearing that she could not pay the underlying tax
liability and that her financial status became worse after she
completed the original CIS. There is also no indication that the
settlement officer considered petitioner’s statement that she was
incarcerated from 1999 to 2003 or made any determination whether
this was sufficient verification that she had no filing
obligations during those years. Had the settlement officer asked
for verification, petitioner would have been able to provide it
just as she provided this Court with records confirming her
incarceration. Given the undisputed facts, we find that the
abrupt decision by the settlement officer indicates she did not
consider the issues petitioner raised during the hearing as
required by section 6330(c)(3)(B) before deciding to issue the
notice of determination, which was an abuse of her discretion.
If section 6330(b) is to be given any force, the Appeals Office
must make its determination after the taxpayer has had the
opportunity to be heard at a fair hearing and after giving
adequate consideration to all meritorious issues the taxpayer has
raised during the hearing.
Accordingly, because we conclude that respondent abused his
discretion by not considering the issues petitioner raised at the
hearing, and no genuine issue of material fact exists requiring
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007