- 29 -
separate petitioner’s assets from Mrs. Johnson’s assets when
petitioner has given her no information on which to base that
separation. Given that petitioner was offering to compromise
both his and Mrs. Johnson’s outstanding tax liabilities, and
given the manner in which petitioner presented the information to
Ms. Cochran, it was not arbitrary or capricious for Ms. Cochran
to consider Mrs. Johnson’s income and assets in evaluating the
joint offer-in-compromise.
5. Efficient Collection Versus Intrusiveness
Petitioner argues 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). Petitioner’s argument is not supported
by the record.
Petitioner has an outstanding tax liability. In his section
6330 hearing, petitioner proposed only an offer-in-compromise.
Because no other collection alternatives were proposed, there
were no less intrusive means for respondent to consider. We find
that respondent balanced the need for efficient collection of
taxes with petitioner’s legitimate concern that collection be no
more intrusive than necessary.
D. Conclusion
Petitioner has not shown that respondent’s determination was
arbitrary or capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011