- 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