- 18 -
The record indicates that the AO determined that the
requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure were
satisfied. The AO considered petitioner’s proposed OIC and
confirmed the rejection of that OIC on the basis of a proper
application of the IRM guidelines. Finally, the AO determined
that the lien balanced the need for efficient collection against
the taxpayer’s concern that the collection action be no more
intrusive than necessary. We conclude that respondent has not
abused his discretion.
Petitioner’s Motions
At trial the Court explained to petitioner that its
jurisdiction in collection appeals cases is strictly limited by
statute and that the Court can only review whether respondent
abused his discretion. Petitioner asked the Court for various
forms of relief, including dismissal of tax penalties, reduction
of taxes due, acceptance of his original OIC, and dismissal of
taxes and penalties for certain years.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent provided by
Congress. See sec. 7442; see also GAF Corp. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). Following a hearing
under section 6320, section 6330(d)(1) permits the taxpayer to
appeal the Commissioner’s determination to the Tax Court.
Iannone v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 290. However, as previously
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008