- 9 -
Following a hearing, the Appeals Office must make a
determination whether the proposed levy action may proceed. The
Appeals Office is required to take into consideration: (1)
Verification presented by the Secretary that the requirements of
applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, (2)
relevant issues raised by the taxpayer, and (3) whether the
proposed levy action appropriately balances the need for
efficient collection of taxes with a taxpayer’s concerns
regarding the intrusiveness of the proposed levy action. Sec.
6330(c)(3).
Section 6330(d)(1) grants this Court jurisdiction to review
the determination made by the Appeals Office in connection with
the section 6330 hearing. Where the underlying tax liability is
not in dispute, the Court will review the determination of the
Appeals Office for abuse of discretion. Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001); Sego v. Commissioner,
supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). An
abuse of discretion occurs if the Appeals Office exercises its
discretion “arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
fact or law.” Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Petitioner failed to respond to the motion for summary
judgment. Consequently, we review the motion and supporting
affidavits and exhibits to decide whether to grant the motion.
Our review confirms that there is no material issue of fact
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008