- 18 -
and the unfortunate, yet convincing, facts presented with respect
to petitioner’s gambling habit, that respondent’s Appeals officer
did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in rejecting
either of petitioner’s OICs and, in doing so, sustaining the
proposed levy action.
Accordingly, without any evidence to create a question of
fact whether respondent’s Appeals Office abused its discretion,
respondent’s motion for summary judgment will be granted, and
petitioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment will be denied.
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Last modified: March 27, 2008