- 10 -
were considered by the same settlement officer, Mr. Blais,6 and
even though the issues raised in those proceedings were
inexorably intertwined so that, more likely than not, the
determination that the NFTL was an appropriate collection action
must have been, at least to some extent, influenced by the
decision with respect to the rejection of the 2003 offer, we do
not consider the appropriateness of that decision because the
2003 offer was not submitted during the course of the section
6320(c) administrative hearing. See sec. 301.6320-1(f)(2),
Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs.7
Instead, our focus is on respondent’s rejection of the
installment agreement offered by petitioner during the section
6320 administrative hearing, and respondent’s refusal to withdraw
or release the NFTL. According to petitioner: (1) The
installment agreement should have been accepted in lieu of the
NFTL; and (2) the NFTL should not have been filed while the 2003
offer was under consideration. Petitioner advances several other
procedural grounds (some of which will be addressed below) in
6 Sec. 6330(b)(3) provides, in relevant part: “The hearing
under this subsection shall be conducted by an officer or
employee who has had no prior involvement with respect to the
unpaid tax * * * before the first hearing under * * * section
6320. A taxpayer may waive the requirement of this paragraph.”
Petitioner does not suggest that Mr. Blais should not have been
assigned to both matters.
7 Mr. Blais upheld the rejection of the 2003 offer under
procedures established under sec. 7122(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007