Larry Bruce - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
               Since the underlying tax liability is not at issue, we                 
          review the Appeals officer’s determination using the abuse of               
          discretion standard.  Under this standard, a determination will             
          be affirmed unless action was taken that was arbitrary or                   
          capricious, lacks sound basis in fact, or is not justifiable in             
          light of the facts and circumstances.  Freije v. Commissioner,              
          125 T.C. 14, 23 (2005).                                                     
               Petitioner broadly assigned error to a denial of his right             
          to a fair hearing.  Based on the information before us and the              
          arguments in his opposition to summary judgment, we believe his             
          primary contention to be that the Appeals officer abused her                
          discretion by failing to recommend any collection alternatives in           
          lieu of the Federal tax lien.  In his opposition to summary                 
          judgment, petitioner presents a laundry list of collection                  
          alternatives that he believes would have been appropriate.                  
          However, the Appeals officer is only required to consider the               
          “offers of collection alternatives” raised and information                  
          presented by the taxpayer.  Chandler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.            
          2004-7.  The only collection alternative even remotely pursued by           
          petitioner at the Appeals hearing was an offer-in-compromise.               
          However, petitioner’s attempt at securing an OIC was weak at                
          best.  See discussion below.  Therefore, it was not an abuse of             
          discretion for respondent’s settlement officer to decline to give           
          more consideration to the matter than she did.                              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007