We generally review the Appeals officer's determination as to the propriety of particular collection action for abuse of discretion. Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 288 (2010); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). However, where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we will review the matter de novo.

The Appeals Office is required to take into consideration: (1) verification presented by the Secretary that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have been met, (2) relevant issues that the taxpayer raised, and (3) whether the proposed collection action appropriately balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's concerns regarding the intrusiveness of the proposed collection action. Sec. 6330(c)(3); Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 287-288 (2010). Pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), we have jurisdiction to review the Appeals Office's determination.

The Appeals Office is required to take into consideration: (1) verification presented by the Secretary that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have been met, (2) relevant issues that the taxpayer raised, and (3) whether the proposed collection action appropriately balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's concerns regarding the intrusiveness of the proposed collection action. Sec. 6330(c)(3); Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 287-288 (2010). Pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), we have jurisdiction to review the Appeals Office's determination.

See Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 294 n.13 (2010).

In such situations we can remand CDP cases to Appeals to develop the record. See Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 299 (2010) (remanding "to clarify and supplement the administrative record" when we determined that the administrative record was "insufficient to enable us to properly evaluate whether the Appeals Office abused its discretion"); Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197, 204-205 (2008) (remanding so that Appeals could clarify the record as to why it determined that all requirements of applicable law were met), supplemented by 136 T.C. 463 (2011). Accordingly, we will remand this case for Appeals to clarify the record as to the evidence (if any) on which Appeals relies to conclude that petitioner was advised on April 23, 2014, to submit additional information regarding the specifics of his refund claim.

The Appeals Office is required to take into consideration: (1) verification presented by the Secretary that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have been met, (2) relevant issues that the taxpayer raised, and (3) whether the proposed collection action appropriately balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's concerns regarding the intrusiveness of the proposed collection action. Sec. 6330(c)(3); Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 287-288 (2010). Pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), we have jurisdiction to review the Appeals Office's determination.

The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) has a three-step procedure for levying upon retirement accounts and instructs IRS employees to levy upon these accounts only if (1) a taxpayer's conduct has been flagrant and (2) the taxpayer does not depend on the funds in the account to pay necessary living expenses, taking into account any special circumstances such as extraordinary expenses. IRM pt. 5.11.6.2 (Dec. 2, 2011); see Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 294-296 (2010) (discussing the IRM provision that addresses the Commissioner's ability to levy upon retirement accounts). Examples of flagrant conduct include, among others, (1) reliance on frivolous arguments, (2) voluntary contributions to retirement accounts when tax is due, (3) conviction for tax evasion for the liability, (4) assessment of a fraud penalty with respect to the liability, and (5) a demonstrated pattern of uncooperative or unresponsive behavior.

If the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we review that issue de novo. See Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 288 (2010); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 610. Other issues a taxpayer properly raises are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

In such a situation, we may remand collection due process cases to Appeals to develop the record. See Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 299 (2010) (remanding "to clarify and supplement the administrative record" when we determined that the administrative record was "insufficient to enable us to properly evaluate whether the Appeals Office abused its discretion"); Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197, 204-205 (2008) (remanding so that Appeals could clarify the record as to why it determined that all requirements of applicable law were met); see also Pomeroy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-26, at *19-*20 (remanding for Appeals to clarify and supplement the record as to its consideration of the taxpayers' health problems). Accordingly, we will remand this case to the Appeals Office to allow the parties to clarify and supplement the record as appropriate.

We generally review the Appeals officer's determination as to the propriety of particular collection action for abuse of discretion. Wadleigh v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 280, 288, 2010 WL 2465531 (2010); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610, 2000 WL 889754 (2000). In some situations, the taxpayer may not have received a notice of deficiency or may not otherwise have had an opportunity to challenge the tax assessed against him.