Joseph Giamelli - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner              
          most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.  Dahlstrom           
          v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985).                                   
               This collection review proceeding was filed pursuant to                
          section 6320, which provides for Tax Court review of respondent’s           
          administrative determinations to proceed with the collection of             
          tax liabilities via liens.  Where the validity of the underlying            
          tax liability is at issue in a collection review proceeding, the            
          Court will review the matter de novo.  Davis v. Commissioner, 115           
          T.C. 35, 39 (2000).  However, where the underlying liability is             
          not at issue, we review the Appeals officer’s determinations                
          regarding the collection action for an abuse of discretion.  Goza           
          v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000).  Mr. Giamelli did not                 
          challenge the validity of the underlying tax liability, and thus            
          this Court would pursuant to precedent review respondent's                  
          administrative determinations for abuse of discretion; that is,             
          whether the determinations were arbitrary, capricious, or without           
          sound basis in fact or law.  See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.             
          604, 610 (2000); Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).           
               Internal Revenue Service guidelines require a taxpayer to be           
          current with filing and payment requirements to qualify for an              
          installment agreement.  2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual           
          (CCH), sec. 5.14.1.2(9)(e), at 17,504.  The Appeals officer, in             
          reliance on the IRS guidelines, rejected Mr. Giamelli’s proposed            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007