- 5 -
relates to the settlement officer’s rejection of petitioner’s
2004 offer, petitioner does not suggest otherwise.
Nevertheless, as petitioner views that matter, respondent’s
determination to collect his outstanding tax liabilities by levy
is an abuse of discretion because the settlement officer
improperly rejected petitioner’s proposed collection alternative.
Specifically, petitioner argues that in rejecting the 2004 offer,
the settlement officer: (1) Erroneously took into account as
potential sources of payment, certain assets previously
transferred to petitioner’s former spouse;5 and (2) failed to
take into account the vagaries of petitioner’s income.
Assuming, without finding, that petitioner is correct on
both points, it remains that other sources of payment included in
the settlement officer’s analysis support the settlement
officer’s conclusion that the 2004 offer did not reflect
5 The parties dispute whether those assets are subject to
the Federal tax lien that arose prior to the transfer. See sec.
6321. Petitioner takes the position that the lien does not
attach, and, not surprisingly, respondent takes the position that
it does. Petitioner expected that this Court in this proceeding
would determine whether the lien did or did not attach to those
assets. Under the circumstances, we need not consider the point.
Furthermore, we note that issues regarding whether respondent’s
tax lien has attached to those assets may be cognizable in a
variety of other types of legal actions. See, e.g., secs. 7403,
7425, 7426; see also 28 U.S.C. sec. 2410 (2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007