Bobby J. Prater - Page 6
- 6 -
efficient collection of taxes with a taxpayer’s concerns
regarding the intrusiveness of the proposed levy action. Sec.
Section 6330(d)(1) grants this Court jurisdiction to review
the determination made by the Appeals Office in connection with
the section 6330 hearing. Where the underlying tax liability is
not in dispute, the Court will review the determination of the
Appeals Office for abuse of discretion. Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001); Sego v. Commissioner,
supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). An
abuse of discretion occurs if the Appeals Office exercises its
discretion “arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
fact or law.” Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Petitioner does not dispute his underlying tax liabilities
for any of the relevant years. Accordingly, we shall review
respondent’s determination for abuse of discretion.
In his petition, petitioner alleges that he now has the
financial information requested by Officer Chapman and that the
Court should remand his case to the Appeals Office for
consideration of payment through an installment agreement.
Respondent asserts that the Appeals officer did not abuse his
discretion by rejecting an installment agreement because
petitioner did not provide the requested financial information at
the section 6330 hearing.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007