- 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 the
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007