- 5 -
check whether the Commissioner properly filed the lien, and take
a second look at whether the filing should be sustained. This
hearing is also a taxpayer’s chance to raise an innocent-spouse
defense, offer collection alternatives, or demonstrate that the
Government’s collection effort is overly intrusive even after
taking into account the need to efficiently collect taxes.
Scharringhausen isn’t challenging his underlying tax
liability, so we review the Commissioner’s determination to see
if he abused his discretion. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
Courts generally hold that a decisionmaker abuses his discretion
“when [he] makes an error of law * * * or rests [his]
determination on a clearly erroneous finding of fact * * * [or]
‘applies the correct law to facts which are not clearly erroneous
but rules in an irrational manner’.” United States v. Sherburne,
249 F.3d 1121, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Friedkin v.
Sternberg, 85 F.3d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir. 1996)); see also Cooter &
Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 402-03 (1990) (same).
We can distill Scharringhausen’s objections to the notice of
determination into two: that the Commissioner didn’t follow
correct procedures in filing the lien, and that the Commissioner
should have accepted his first offer to compromise the taxes
involved.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008