- 6 - On January 6, 2006, an Appeals Office hearing was held by telephone conference among respondent’s Appeals Office, petitioners, and petitioners’ attorney. On February 8, 2006, respondent’s Appeals Office issued to petitioners a notice of determination sustaining respondent’s levy notice. In the notice of determination, respondent’s Appeals Office indicated that because petitioners had defaulted on the OIC and because petitioners had not provided any financial or other information applicable to other collection alternatives, respondent’s levy notice was sustained. Discussion Because the underlying tax liability is not in dispute, we review the actions of respondent’s Appeals Office for abuse of discretion. See Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). Abuse of discretion occurs where the actions of the Commissioner’s Appeals Office are arbitrary or capricious, lack sound basis in law, or are not justifiable in light of the facts and circumstances. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Pursuant to section 6330(c)(3), respondent’s Appeals Office must verify that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have been met, consider issues raised by petitioners, and consider whether the proposed collection actionPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008