- 13 - that date, was $288,028.05. At the hearing afforded to petitioner, however, it was determined that his equity in assets, including a retirement account which approximated the amount of the tax liability, exceeded his outstanding income tax liability. For that reason, the Appeals officer did not believe there was a prospect for the consideration of an offer-in-compromise, although the Appeals officer was open to working out a schedule to levy on the retirement account in a manner that would minimize the tax and/or penalty burden on retirement account distributions used to pay the outstanding tax liability. Many of petitioner’s contentions in support of his argument that there was an abuse of discretion have their roots in respondent’s failure to consider and/or agree to collection alternatives or to delay in filing an NFTL so as to lessen the detrimental effect on petitioner or his wife. We proceed to evaluate petitioner’s contentions. I. Whether Petitioner Was Entitled to a Hearing Prior to Respondent’s Filing an NFTL Petitioner has contended that he was not afforded due process because respondent did not provide him with a hearing prior to filing an NFTL. See Beery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 184, 190 (2004). Section 6320(a) provides for notification of the filing of an NFTL in writing not more than 5 business days after the date of the filing of an NFTL. The express statutory language does not entitle petitioner to a hearing prior to thePage: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007