Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 02-9120.
June 5, 2003.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, Patricia Christian, claims that she has been denied her due process right to a hearing pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6330. Additionally, plaintiff claims that there has been an abuse of discretion by the Internal Revenue Service concerning the judicial review of the administrative determination following that hearing.
Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6330, I review the determination made by Internal Revenue Service Appeals Officer Leonard Getz under an abuse of discretion standard. In applying this standard, I will "consider whether the decision was based on consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment . . . Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one." Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). I may not substitute my own judgment for that of the Internal Revenue Service's Appeals Officer provided his determination was based on relevant factors and was not arbitrary and capricious. Id.
In this particular case, all the requirements of the statute have been met. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(3), requiring that the hearing be conducted by an officer who has had no prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax, Appeals Officer Leonard Getz conducted plaintiff s hearing without prior knowledge of plaintiff s outstanding tax liability. The hearing was conducted via telephone on October 5, 2000, at which time plaintiff's representative, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii), inquired about whether plaintiff would qualify to make payments on her outstanding employment tax liabilities under an installment plan. In a letter dated April 25, 2001, Appeals Officer Getz sent to plaintiff's representative a Summary Notice of Determination, Waiver of Right to Judicial Review of a Collection Due Process Determination, and Waiver of Suspension of Levy Action, along with a letter explaining that after consideration of her account plaintiff was not entitled to an installment agreement because her other outstanding tax liabilities and unfiled tax returns were not in compliance with the requirements for entering into such an agreement. Appeals Officer Getz requested a response from either plaintiff or her representative by May 4, 2001. Having heard nothing, Getz prepared the Notice of Determination, which concluded that the issuance of a Notice of Levy was fair and appropriate because it balanced the need for efficient tax collection with plaintiffs concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
The Internal Revenue Service appropriately conducted the administrative collection action against plaintiff. The IRS satisfied all the procedural requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6330. The determination of Appeals Officer Getz was based on the relevant factors presented and was not arbitrary or capricious, and there was no clear error of judgment. There has been no abuse of discretion and therefore the determination of the Appeals Officer Getz will be sustained and the collection process permitted to proceed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of June, 2003, after consideration of defendant Commissioner of IRS's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's response thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant, the Commissioner of the IRS, and against plaintiff, Patricia Christian.