- 32 -
to be considered. Petitioners argument is not supported by the
record.
Petitioners assert that they were “initially only given
weeks” to provide all information. However, they ignore the fact
that Ms. Cochran granted their requested extension and allowed
them until April 9, 2004 to submit information. Additionally,
petitioners have not identified any documents or other
information that they believe Ms. Cochran should have considered
but that they were unable to produce because of the deadline for
submission. Given the thoroughness and the amount of information
submitted, it is unclear why petitioners needed additional time.
We do not believe that Ms. Cochran abused her discretion by
establishing a deadline for the submission of information.
4. Efficient Collection Versus Intrusiveness
Petitioners argue that respondent failed to balance the need
for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern
that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
See sec. 6330(c)(3)(C). Petitioners’ argument is not supported
by the record.
Petitioners have an outstanding tax liability. In their
section 6330 hearing, petitioners proposed only an offer-in-
compromise. Because no other collection alternatives were
proposed, there were not less intrusive means for respondent to
consider. We find that respondent balanced the need for
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011