TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Roland Crane
Docket Number: 13892-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 08/27/2009
Pages: 22

UNITED STATES TAX COUR T WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 ROLAND CRANE, Petitione r V . Docket No .. 13892-07L . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of . the pages of the transcript of the further trial in the .above case before Judge L . Paige Marvel at Washington, D .C ., on August 13, 2009, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the further trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, . decision will be entered for respondent . n (Signed ) L. Paige Marvel Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . August 27, 2009 SERVED AUG 2 7 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Marve l August 13, 200 9 2 Crane v . Commissioner Docket No . 13892-07 L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 4 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 5 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 6 fact and opinion . The oral findings of fact an d 7 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 8 other case . 9 Unless otherwise indicated, all sectio n 10 references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect 11 for the years before the Court, and all rul e 12 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 Procedure . These oral findings of fact and opinion 14 are rendered in accordance with and pursuant t o 15 § 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 16 Petitioner Roland Crane petitioned thi s 17 Court pursuant'to § 6330(d) to review a notice of 18 determination in which Respondent's Appeals offic e 19 concluded that Respondent could proceed to collec t 20 Petitioner's unpaid federal income tax liabilities for 21 1999 through 2003 and a civil penalty by levy . Th e 22 sole issue for decision is whether the Appeals Office 23 abused its discretion when it sustained the proposed 24 levy . 25 A trial was held on September 24, 2008 . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 Subsequently, the Court granted Respondent's motion to 2 remand the case to the Appeals Office so that th e 3 Appeals Office could hold a face-to-face hearing with 4 Petitioner and issue a supplemental notice o f 5 determination . 6 Petitioner participated in a face-to-face 7 hearing, and thereafter the Appeals Office issued a 8 supplemental notice of determination dated March 18, 9 2009 . 10 On August 13, 2009, a date that was set 11 after consultation with both Petitioner an d 12 Respondent's counsel, a supplemental trial was held . 13 Najah J . Shariff appeared on behalf of Respondent . 14 Petitioner did not appear and did not contact the 15 Court regarding his failure to appear before th e 16 supplemental trial commenced . 17 Findings of Fact . Some of the facts have 18 been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are 19 incorporated by this reference . Petitioner resided in 20 California when he petitioned the Court . 21 Petitioner filed federal income tax returns 22 for 1999 through 2003, but failed to pay all of the 23 federal income tax reported on those returns . 24 Respondent assessed the federal income tax liability 25 for each of the years in issue, together with Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 additions to tax and interest, and issued notices of 2 balance due and demands for payment . As o f 3 February 16, 2009, Petitioner's total unpaid ta x 4 liabilities, inclusive of additions to tax, interest 5 and a civil penalty assessed under § 6682(a), totaled 6 $59,467 .75 . 7 On May 24, 2006, Respondent issued t o 8 Petitioner a Final .Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice 9 of Your Right to a Hearing that notified Petitioner of 10 Respondent's intent to collect Petitioner's unpaid tax 11 liabilities by levy . 12 On June 22, 2006, Petitioner timely filed a 13 Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Proces s 14 Hearing . In his Form 12153, Petitioner stated that he 15 had a severe illness that might make it difficult or 16 impossible for him to work in the future . Petitioner 17 did not dispute the existence or amount of the 18 liabilities . 19 On July 18, 2006, Respondent's Collection 20 Operations office mailed Petitioner a lette r 21 acknowledging receipt of Petitioner's Form 12153 and 22 enclosing a copy of Form 433-F, Collection Information 23 Statement, which the Collection Operations Offic e 24 asked Petitioner to complete and submit . 25 On August 17, 2006, Settlement Officer Janet Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 Day in Respondent's Office of Appeals in San Antonio, 2 Texas, mailed a letter to Petitioner acknowledgin g 3 receipt of Petitioner's Form 12153 and enclosing Form 4 433-A, Collection Information Statement fo r 5 Individuals ; Form 433-B, Collection Information 6 Statement for Businesses ; and Publication 4165 , 7 Introduction to Collection Due Process Hearing . (Ms . 8 Day changed her name in 2008 to Janet M . Parish, but 9 for convenience we will refer to her throughout this 10 opinion as Ms . Day . ) 11 On August 23, 2006, Petitioner contacted Ms . 12 Day . Ms . Day requested that Petitioner provide her 13 with a completed Form 433-A, Collection Information 14 Statement, and records related to his income an d 15 expenses . In late September 2006, Petitione r 16 submitted a completed Form 433-F and provided various 17 records relating to his income and expenses . 18 The records included : 1) A bi-weekly pay 19 stub from Petitioner's employer, the City of Lo s 20 Angeles ; 2) Records relating to Petitioner's divorce 21 and child support obligations ; 3) A letter fro m 22 Petitioner's physician regarding Petitioner's medical 23 condition ; 4) A copy of Petitioner's credit report ; 5) 24 Records relating to Petitioner's medical, dental, life 25 and disability insurance policies ; 6) Records related Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 to Petitioner's credit card balances ; 7) Record s 2 regarding Petitioner's deferred compensation plan ; and 3 8) Records regarding Petitioner's loans from the Lo s 4 Angeles Federal Credit Union . 5 On March 19, 2007, Ms . Day mailed a letter 6 to Petitioner scheduling a telephone conference for 7 April 4, 2007 . In the letter, Ms . Day set forth her 8 analysis of financial information Petitioner ha d 9 provided and stated that she had calculated he had the 10 ability to pay $1,373 .82 per month . Ms . Day asked for 11 additional information and informed Petitioner tha t 12 they would review the information regarding his 13 ability to pay during his hearing . 14 On April 4, 2007, Petitioner left a 15 telephone message for Ms . Day requesting a face-to- 16 face hearing at an,office closest to Petitioner . Ms . 17 Day called Petitioner's telephone number at th e 18 appointed time for the scheduled conference, but there 19 was no answer, and Ms . Day was unable to leave a 20 message . 21 On April 10, 2007, Ms . Day mailed Petitioner 22 a followup letter proposing an installment agreement 23 in the amount of $810 per month . Ms . Day represented 24 that the $810 monthly payment amount was the lowes t 25 amount that she could offer that would fully pay the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 tax liabilities within the applicable collection 2 period of limitations . 3 However, the figure Ms . Day had calculate d 4 was inaccurate because she had made some computational 5 errors . The correct minimum payment was $804 pe r 6 month . Ms . Day informed Petitioner that if he did not 7 respond by April 24, 2007, she would issue a notice of 8 determination . 9 On April 17, 2007, Petitioner and Ms . Day 10 held a § 6330 hearing by telephone . During th e 11 hearing, Petitioner informed Ms . Day that he had renal 12 failure and he expected to begin dialysis shortly . 13 Petitioner had provided Ms . Day with a letter from his 14 doctor, and he told Ms . Day that if his medica l 15 condition worsened he might not be able to continue 16 working . Petitioner has since started dialysis . 17 Ms . Day inquired about Petitioner's medical 18 condition and his medical insurance coverage, and she 19 informed Petitioner that if his medical condition or 20 financial situation changed he could ask that hi s 21 installment agreement, if he entered into one, b e 22 reevaluated at that time . Petitioner did not suggest 23 any alternatives to the $810 per month installmen t 24 agreement proposed by Ms . Day . 25 Petitioner again requested a face-to-face Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 hearing . However, Ms . Day advised him tha t 2 transferring his case to the Appeals Office closest to 3 his home to afford him a face-to-face hearing woul d 4 only delay the appeals process . 5 At the conclusion of the hearing, Petitioner 6 said he would consider Ms . Day's offer for an 7 installment agreement, and Ms . Day again advised him 8 that if she did not hear from him by April 24 sh e 9 would issue a notice of determination sustaining 10 Respondent's levy . Petitioner did not contact Ms . 11 Day . 12 On May 17, 2007, the Appeals office issued 13 Petitioner a notice of determination concernin g 14 collection action under § 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of 15 determination) sustaining the levy . On June 18, 2007, 16 Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Cour t 17 seeking our review of Respondent's notice of 18 determination . 19 In his petition, Petitioner raised tw o 20 issues . First, Petitioner argued he was entitled to a 21 lower monthly payment due to financial and medica l 22 hardship . Second, Petitioner argued he was denied a 23 face-to-face hearing with Respondent's Appeals Office . 24 Petitioner's case was tried on September 24, 25 2008, in Los Angeles, California . On November 7 , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 2008, Respondent filed a motion to remand the case to 2 Respondent's Los Angeles Appeals Office so tha t 3 Petitioner could have a face-to-face hearing at the 4 Appeals Office closest to his residence . O n 5 December 2, 2008, we granted Respondent's motion . 6 On December 4, 2008, Settlement Officer 7 Patrick Lin (Mr . Lin) mailed Petitioner a lette r 8 acknowledging that Petitioner's case had been remanded 9 to the Los Angeles Appeals Office and scheduling a 10 face-to-face hearing for January 9, 2009 . Mr . Lin's 11 letter requested that Petitioner provide a completed 12 Form 656 Offer in Compromise, a completed Form 433-A 13 and supplemental financial information by January 6, 14 2009 . 15 Petitioner subsequently called Mr . Lin about 16 rescheduling the hearing, and Mr . Lin agreed t o 17 reschedule the hearing for January 21, 2009 . However, 18 Mr . Lin asked Petitioner to submit the completed forms 19 and financial information several days before th e 20 January 21 hearing so that Mr . Lin could review the 21 information . Petitioner did not do so . 22 On January 21, 2009, Mr . Lin conducted a 23 face-to-face hearing with Petitioner . At the hearing, 24 Petitioner presented a completed Form 656 in which he 25 offered to pay $10,000 in 24 installments of $350 per Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 month and a completed Form 433-A . Mr . Lin reviewe d 2 Petitioner's Form 656, Form 433-A and the supplemental 3 financial information, and he identified severa l 4 mistakes . 5 He annotated the forms in Petitioner' s 6 presence to show Petitioner how the forms had to b e 7 corrected and to reflect his analysis of Petitioner's 8 correct financial information based on the information 9 and records supplied by Petitioner and Mr . Lin' s 10 analysis of applicable national and local standards 11 that the Appeals Office uses to evaluate a taxpayer's 12 ability to pay . 13 On the basis of his review, Mr . Lin 14 concluded that Petitioner needed to revise both the 15 Form 656 and the Form 433-A . Among other things, Mr . 16 Lin told Petitioner that Petitioner had made a mistake 17 in preparing his offer in compromise (OIC) in that 24 18 monthly payments of $350 would equal only $8,400, not 19 $10,000 as indicated in the OIC . 20 Petitioner did not revise the Form 65 6 21 during the hearing, nor did he submit the required OIC 22 downpayment or the $150 user processing fee . 23 Petitioner retrieved the original Forms 656 and 433-A 24 from Mr . Lin and stated that he would return o n 25 January 27, 2009, with corrected Forms 656 and 433-A . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 1 However, Petitioner did not do so . 2 After Petitioner did not appear as promised, 3 Mr . Lin sent a followup letter to Petitioner tha t 4 scheduled a followup meeting for February 9, 2009, and 5 requested additional information and updated forms . 6 On February 9, 2009, Petitioner appeared for th e 7 meeting several hours late, and he did not bring the 8 information and forms that Mr . Lin had requested . 9 During the February 9 meeting, Petitione r 10 stated that he disagreed with Respondent's application 11 of overpayment credits from calendar years 200 4 12 through 2007 to Petitioner's 1997 and 2000 tax 13 liabilities . Mr . Lin explained how the credits were 14 applied, and he answered Petitioner's question s 15 regarding the factors Respondent uses to evaluate 16 offers in compromise . 17 By letter dated February 10, 2009, Mr . Lin 18 sent Petitioner copies of account transcripts so that 19 Petitioner could verify that Respondent had properly 20 applied the overpayment credits . Mr . Lin als o 21 requested yet again that Petitioner provide updated 22 Forms 656 and 433-A . 23 On February 11, 2009, Petitioner appeared at 24 Respondent's Appeals Office without an appointment and 25 asked to meet with Mr . Lin . Mr . Lin was in a meeting Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 13 1 at the time , but stepped out long enough to advis e 2 Petitioner that they could not meet that day . Mr . Lin 3 asked Petitioner to call . and schedule a meeting . 4 Petitioner did not submit a revised Form 656 5 or Form 433 - A on February 11 and he did not contac t 6 Mr . Lin after February 11 to schedule a meeting or to 7 submit a proper collection alternative such as an OIC 8 or,an installment agreement . 9 On March 2, 2009, the Appeals office issued I-Pol IS 10 a supplemental notice of determination concernin g 11 collection action under § 6320 and/or 633 0 12 (supplemental notice of determination) . An attachment 13 to the supplemental notice of determination stated as 14 follows : 15 First, the Commissioner followed al l 16 applicable laws and administrative procedures with 17 respect to the levy . 18 Second, the . Appeals Office provide d 19 Petitioner with copies of his account transcripts . and 20 verified that Petitioner's overpayments were properly 21 applied to his 1997 and 2000 unpaid liabilities . 22 Third, the Appeals Office reviewed 23 Petitioner's Forms 656 and 433-A and analyze d 24 Petitioner's monthly income, expenses and reasonable 25 collection potential . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) . 628-4888 1 4 1 Finally, the Appeals Office considere d 2 whether the proposed levy appropriately balanced the 3 need for efficient tax collection with Petitioner's 4 concern that the levy be no more intrusive tha n 5 necessary . 6 Although the attachment did not expressly 7 mention Petitioner's health problems, the Appeal s 8 Office allowed Petitioner $250 per month for medical 9 expenses and out-of-pocket medical care, an amount in 10 excess of the amount Petitioner claimed on the Form 11 656 he showed to Mr . Lin on January 21, 2009, i n 12 calculating the Petitioner's reasonable collection 13 potential . On the basis of all these factors, the 14 supplemental notice of determination sustained the 15 proposed levy . 16 On August 13, 2009, a trial to supplemen t 17 the earlier trial record was held . Petitioner did not 18 appear or contact the Court to explain his failure to 19 appear . The Court proceeded with trial . 20 Counsel for Respondent called Mr . Lin, who 21 testified about the § 6330 hearing on remand, an d 22 introduced additional trial exhibits, including the 23 supplemental notice of determination to which the 24 parties had stipulated . We decide this case wit h 25 reference to the supplemental notice of determination Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 5 1 and the trial record from the September 24, 2008, and 2 August 13, 2009, trial proceedings . 3 Let me turn now to the discussion . First of 4 all we'll talk about § 6330 . Sectio n (0331 (c LPrn 5 provides that if any person liable to pay any ta x 6 refuses to pay the tax within 10 days after notice and 7 demand the Commissioner may collect the tax by levying 8 upon all of the person's property or rights t o 9 property . 10 However, the Commissioner may not lev y 11 unless he has first informed the taxpayer in writing 12 of his right to a hearing . Section 6330(a)(1) . If 13 the taxpayer timely requests a hearing, the hearing 14 shall be held before an impartial officer or employee 15 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Office . 16 Section 6330(b) (1) .and (3) . 17 At the § 6330 hearing, the taxpayer may 18 raise any relevant issue, including appropriat e 19 spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of 20 collection action and collection alternatives . 21 Section 6330(c)(2)(A) . The taxpayer may also dispute 22 the existence or amount of the underlying ta x 23 liability, but only if he did not receive the notice 24 of deficiency or did not have a prior opportunity to 25 dispute the liability . Section 6330(c)(2)(B), Sego v . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I 1 6 1 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 609 (2000) . 2 A taxpayer who presents relevant , 3 nonfrivolous reasons for objecting to a proposed levy 4 ordinarily will be offered a face-to-face hearing at 5 the Appeals Office closest to the taxpayer' s 6 residence . Section 301 .6330-1(d)(2) Q&A-D7, Proced . & 7 Admin . Regs . 8 A taxpayer is entitled to only one 9 collection due process hearing with respect to the 10 year or years to which the unpaid tax liabilit y 11 relates . Section 6330(b)(2), Freije v . Commissioner , 12 125 T .C . 14, 22 (2005) . Thus, when a case is remanded 13 to the Appeals Office the further hearing supplements 14 the taxpayer's original § 6330 hearing . Drake v . 15 Commissioner , 125 T .C . 201 (2005), supplemented by 16 T .C . Memo 2006-151, affd . 511 F .3d 65 (1st Cir . 2007) . 17 As we explained in Drake v . Commissioner , 18 T .C . Memo 2006-151, "The resulting § 6330 hearing on 19 remand provides the parties with the opportunity to 20 complete the initial § 6330 hearing while preserving 21 the taxpayer's right to receive judicial review of the 22 ultimate administrative determination . " 23 Following the hearing, the Appeals Office 24 must determine whether the proposed levy shoul d 25 proceed . In making the determination, the Appeals Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 7 1 Office must consider three elements : 2 First, the Appeals Office must verify that 3 the Commissioner followed all applicable laws and 4 administrative procedures . Section 6330(c)(1), 5 (3) (A) . 6 Second, the Appeals Office must consider all 7 relevant issues raised by the taxpayer at the hearing . 8 Section 6330(c)(2) and (3) (B) . 9 Third, the Appeals Office must consider 10 whether the collection action balances the need for 11 efficient collection of taxes with the legitimat e 12 concern of the taxpayer that any collection action be 13 no more intrusive than necessary . Section 14 6330 (c) (3) (C) . 15 Standard of Review . This Court has 16 . jurisdiction to review the Appeals Offic e 17 determination . Section 6330(d)(1)(A) . However, our 18 standard of review depends upon whether the underlying 19 liability was properly at issue in the § 6330 hearing . 20 If the underlying liability is properly at 21 issue, we review the determination regarding th e 22 underlying liability de novo . If the underlying 23 liability is not properly at issue, we review the 24 determination for abuse of discretion . Sego v 25 Commissioner , supra at 610 . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 18 1 We will not conclude that a determination i s 2 an abuse of discretion unless it is arbitrary , 3 capricious or without sound basis in fact or law . 4 Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) . 5 Where the Commissioner has issued more than one notice 6 of determination, the position we review is the 7 position taken in the notice of determination as ...r. , _ 8 supplemented . Kelby v . Commissioner , 130 T .C .V(2009) 9 (Slip opinion at 13) . 10 Petitioner has not challenged the existence 11 or amount of the underlying tax liabilities . 12 Accordingly, we review the Appeals Office's 13 determination for abuse of discretion . 14 Appeals Office Determination, Applicable Law 15 and Administrative Procedure . In his petition , 16 Petitioner objected to the Appeals Office's failure to 17 offer him a face-to-face hearing at the office closest 18 to his residence . As the case has since been remanded 19 to the Appeals Office in Los Angeles for the purpose 20 of providing Petitioner with a face-to-face hearin g 21 and because a face-to-face hearing has been held, we 22 conclude that this issue is moot . See Sapp v . 23 Commissioner , T .C . Memo 2006-104 . 24 In the attachment to the supplemental notice 25 of determination, the Appeals Office stated the Heritage Reporting Corporation .(202) 628-4888 1 9 1 following : 1) Mr . Lin verified that Petitioner' s 2 liabilities were assessed within the statutory period 3 as required by § 6201, and a notice and demand fo r 4 payment was mailed'to Petitioner's last known address 5 within 60 days of the assessment as required b y 6 § 6303 ; 7 2) Petitioner had a balance due when the 8 notice and demand was issued ; 3) Petitioner wa s 9 offered a hearing prior to the levy as required by 10 § 6330(a) ; 4) There is no pending OIC, installmen t 11 agreement, innocent spouse request, bankruptcy case or 12, other impediment to levy . 13 After considering the trial record, we are 14 satisfied that the Appeals Office properly verified 15 that the requirements of applicable law an d 16 administrative procedure have been met as required by 17 § 6330(c)(1) . 18 Consideration of Taxpayer's Arguments . 19 Aside from his request for a face-to-face hearing, 20 Petitioner raised two-issues in this collection due 21 process hearing : First, in his communications with 22 Ms . Day and Mr . Lin, Petitioner argued the proposed 23 levy was inappropriate because his deterioratin g 24 health might increase his medical expenses and 25 decrease his ability to work . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 2 0 1 Second, during one of his meetings with Mr . 2 Lin, Petitioner stated that he disagreed with the way 3 in which Respondent applied his overpayments for tax 4 years 2005 through 2007 to his 1997 and 2000 unpai d 5 tax liabilities . 6 The attachment to the supplemental notice of 7 determination does not specifically addres s 8 Petitioner's medical condition . However, both th e 9 testimony of Mr . Lin and the analysis of Petitioner's 10 reasonable collection potential contained in several 11 exhibits confirm that Mr . Lin gave Petitioner many 12 opportunities to document his income, expenses, assets 13 and liabilities, including his actual medical an d 14 dental expenses . 15 It is also apparent from the trial record 16 that Mr . Lin estimated some expenses, for example the 17 cost of a future dental procedure, in Petitioner' s 18 favor even though Petitioner did not document the cost 19 despite a request that he do so and that Mr . Li n 20 obtained information showing that Petitioner was a 21 member of an HMO that covered the expenses of his 22 dialysis . 23 Not only was Petitioner's health situation 24 taken into account, but Petitioner was informed that 25 if his health deteriorated, resulting in increase d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 2 1 1 medical expenses or decreased earnings, Petitione r 2 could ask to have his financial condition reevaluated 3 by the Internal Revenue Service . 4 It is also important to emphasize that Mr . 5 Lin gave Petitioner several opportunities to submit an 6 OIC or other collection alternative such as an 7 installment pay agreement, but Petitioner failed t o 8 submit any OIC or installment pay agreement that could 9 be processed by the Appeals Office . 10 Mr . Lin met with Petitioner several times 11 and attempted to assist him in preparing a proper OIC . 12 Petitioner simply did not do what he had to do t o 13 document that he was entitled to a collection 14 alternative . 15 The record establishes that throughout the 16 hearing process on remand Mr . Lin considere d 17 Petitioner's arguments, provided Petitioner with 18 account transcripts, verified that Petitioner' s 19 overpayments were correctly applied to his outstanding 20 liabilities and encouraged Petitioner to submi t 21 properly completed Forms 656 and 433-A . On thi s 22 record, we conclude Mr . Lin and the Appeals Office of 23 which he was a part gave due consideration to th e 24 issues raised by Petitioner . 25 Balancing Efficient Tax Collection With Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 22 1 Taxpayer's Concern About the Intrusiveness o f 2 Collection Activity . In the attachment to th e 3 supplemental notice of determination, the Appeals 4 Office concluded that the proposed levy properl y 5 balanced the need for efficient tax collection with 6 Petitioner's concern that collection activity be no 7 more intrusive than necessary . 8 Petitioner failed to revise his Forms 656 9 and 433-A as requested and declined to offer an y 10 collection alternatives to the proposed levy, leaving 11 the Appeals Office with no viable alternative but to 12 reach the conclusion it did . We conclude that the 13 Appeals Office properly balanced the need fo r 14 efficient collection with Petitioner's concern that 15 collection be no more intrusive than necessary . 16 Let me turn now to the ultimate conclusion . 17 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Appeals 18 Office did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the 19 proposed levy with respect to Petitioner's unpaid ta x 20 liabilities . Accordingly, decision will be entered 1_-PM 21 Respondent . 22 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 23 fact and opinion . 24 All right . Now, Ms . Shariff, do you have 25 anything else you wish to add at this point? Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 2 3 1 MS . SHARIFF : No, Your Honor . 2 THE COURT : All right . I'd like to thank 3 you all for coming all this way for this hearing . I 4 am sorry that Petitioner did not attend . I certainly 5 wouldn't have subjected you to this if I had realized 6 that Petitioner was not going to show up . 7 Ms . Shariff, I do appreciate the effort you 8 made to try and give me a good, clear record . It was 9 a good, clear record, and I particularly liked th e 10 fact that you paid attention to refreshing 11 recollection and actually made an effort to do it 12 correctly, so congratulations . 13 MS . SHARIFF : Thank you . 14 THE COURT : All right . If there is nothing 15 else then the Court stands adjourned . 16 THE CLERK : All rise . 17 (Whereupon, at 3 :29 p .m . the bench opinion 18 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888