- 4 -
In response to the 2004 offer, respondent’s settlement
officer considered petitioner’s financial situation, determined
that the 2004 offer of $1,000 did not reflect petitioner’s
ability to pay his outstanding tax liabilities, rejected that
offer-in-compromise, and caused the above-referenced notice of
determination to be issued.
Discussion
At the administrative hearing, petitioner challenged the
appropriateness of respondent’s proposed collection activity and
offered a collection alternative. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A)(ii) and
(iii). Needless to say, respondent is entitled to levy in order
to collect a taxpayer’s tax liability. See sec. 6331.3
Furthermore, as he was required to do, the settlement officer
considered the collection alternative proposed by petitioner
during the administrative hearing.4 See sec. 6330(c)(3)(B).
The record establishes that the settlement officer proceeded
in the manner contemplated by section 6330, and other than as
3 In general and subject to various conditions that need not
be discussed here, that section provides that if any person
liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay such tax within
10 days after notice and demand for payment, the Commissioner is
authorized to collect such tax by levy on the person’s property.
4 The settlement officer invited petitioner to make an
offer-in-compromise commensurate with the amount that the
settlement officer determined petitioner’s financial situation
would allow. Petitioner now attacks the settlement officer’s
proposal. We focus on the settlement officer’s consideration and
rejection of the 2004 offer, not on the appropriateness of the
settlement officer’s proposal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007