- 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 action
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008