- 9 -
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001); Sego v. Commissioner,
supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). An
abuse of discretion occurs if the Appeals Office exercises its
discretion “arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
fact or law.” Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Petitioners do not dispute their underlying tax liabilities
for any of the relevant years. Accordingly, we shall review
respondent’s determination for abuse of discretion in deciding
whether to grant respondent’s summary judgment motion.
In their petition, petitioners allege that respondent abused
his discretion by failing to consider the reality of petitioners’
income, health status, and expenses when determining petitioners’
ability to pay under an installment agreement. Respondent argues
that he did not abuse his discretion by sustaining the proposed
levy.
On the record presented in support of respondent’s summary
judgment motion, we conclude that there is no material fact in
dispute regarding the exercise of respondent’s discretion.
Petitioners did not file any response to respondent’s summary
judgment motion. Because they did not respond, we are left with
the task of reviewing the motion record without the benefit of
petitioners’ guidance.
The record shows that Officer Clark did not abuse his
discretion by making adjustments to petitioners’ Form 433-A.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007