- 6 -
(1st Cir. 2006). The Appeals officer did not abuse his
discretion by declining to delay his determinations to await the
uncertain outcome of petitioner’s eleventh-hour request for audit
reconsideration and the uncertain outcome of any audit
reconsideration that might be granted.
Petitioner contends that notwithstanding section
6330(c)(2)(B), which precluded him from challenging his
underlying liability in the collection hearing, he should have
been permitted to make an offer-in-compromise on the basis of
doubt as to liability, pursuant to sections 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii)
and 7122. The short answer is petitioner never made any offer-
in-compromise. Accordingly, the Appeals officer did not abuse
his discretion in failing to consider any offer-in-compromise.
See Kindred v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 688, 696 (7th Cir. 2006)
(characterizing as “frivolous” an argument that the taxpayers
should have been allowed to submit an offer-in-compromise in a
collection hearing, where the taxpayers never actually made an
offer-in-compromise); Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 79
(2005).
On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that
there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact. Petitioner
has failed to make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of
respondent’s intended collection action or offer alternative
means of collection. In the absence of a valid issue for review,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007