- 7 -
available to her to make a determination was what was already
contained in the administrative record.
Petitioner’s testimony clearly demonstrates he was granted
an opportunity for an administrative hearing within the meaning
of section 6330(b). Even though he was not personally in contact
with Ms. O’Neal, his attorney, Mr. Bailey was. Additionally, Ms.
O’Neal’s review of petitioner’s administrative file and computer
transcripts of account reveals that respondent’s determination
was not arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or
law. See Leineweber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17; Mann v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48; sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), A-D7,
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that
respondent’s determination to proceed with collection was not an
abuse of discretion. Because petitioner did not raise a valid
claim, such as a spousal defense or an alternative means of
collection, such claims are deemed conceded. See Rule 331(b)(4).
In reaching these holdings, the Court has considered all
arguments made and, to the extent not mentioned, concludes that
they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be
entered for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007