- 19 -
We turn now to the argument of Mr. Gazi and Ms. Gazi’s
estate that respondent abused respondent’s discretion in making
the determinations in the notice of determination because the
settlement officer refused “to grant Petitioner additional time
to submit an Offer in Compromise as a collection alternative in
this matter.” There is no requirement that the Commissioner wait
a certain amount of time before making a determination as to a
proposed levy. See sec. 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E9, Proced. &
Admin. Regs.9 Section 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E9, Proced. & Admin.
Regs., provides that there is no period of time within which the
Appeals Office must conduct a hearing under section 6330 or issue
a notice of determination under that section and that “Appeals
will * * * attempt to conduct a * * * [hearing under section
6330] and issue a Notice of Determination as expeditiously as
possible under the circumstances.”
On the record before us, we find that the settlement offi-
cer’s refusal (1) to reschedule the Appeals Office hearing from
May 15, 2006, to at least one week later and (2) to consider
further collection alternatives proposed by the taxpayer was
reasonable in light of the circumstances presented. In the
settlement officer’s March 27, 2006 letter, the settlement
officer offered Mr. Gazi and Ms. Gazi’s estate the opportunity to
have a face-to-face Appeals Office hearing on April 25, 2006, and
9See also Clawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-106.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008