Estate of Jacqueline R. Farwell, Bruce Farwell, Personal Representative(s)

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo. 2026-95 ESTATE OF JACQUELINE R. FARWELL, DECEASED, BRUCE FARWELL, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE,

Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

__________ Docket No. 11555-22L. Filed September 28, 2026.

__________ Jason A. Harn, for petitioner.

Logan M. Westerman, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: In this collection due process (CDP) case, the Estate of Jacqueline R. Farwell, deceased, Bruce Farwell, personal representative (Estate), seeks review, pursuant to sections 6320(c) 1 and 6330(d)(1), of a determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals) sustaining a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) relating to unpaid tax liabilities for 2008 through 2011, 2013, and 2015 (years in issue) and declining to reinstate acceptance of Jacqueline R. Farwell’s offer-in-compromise (OIC).

On July 25, 2024, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion) contending that no material facts remain in dispute [*2] and that Appeals did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the collection action. On August 30, 2024, the Estate filed its Response. For the reasons set forth below, we find that Appeals did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the NFTL, and we will grant respondent’s Motion.

Background

The following facts are derived from the parties’ pleadings, Motion papers and Exhibits, and the Administrative Record of the CDP hearing. See Rules 93, 121(c). These facts are stated solely for the purpose of deciding the above-referenced Motion and not as findings of fact in this case. See Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff’d, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). Decedent, Jacqueline R. Farwell, resided in the State of Washington when she died testate. Probate proceedings for the Estate were initiated in the State of Washington. When the Petition was filed, the personal representative for the Estate, Bruce Farwell, resided in the State of Washington.

In April 2018 Dr. Farwell was diagnosed with a neurodegenerative terminal illness. On December 14, 2018, Bruce Farwell, Dr. Farwell’s brother, was granted a durable power of attorney to assist his sister with her finances. On March 12, 2020, Dr. Farwell passed away. Dr. Farwell’s death terminated both the legal representation of her attorney, Jason A. Harn, and her brother’s durable power of attorney.

The proposed collection action relates to Dr. Farwell’s self- reported but unpaid federal individual income tax liabilities for the years in issue. On September 18, 2018, the IRS recorded a lien with respect to Dr. Farwell’s outstanding tax liabilities totaling $119,386. In a timely submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, Dr. Farwell requested a CDP hearing and consideration of an OIC as a collection alternative. Settlement Officer Robert E. Patterson III (SO Patterson) scheduled a telephone CDP hearing for April 24, 2019.

Dr. Farwell’s OIC

Dr. Farwell submitted Form 656, Offer in Compromise, signed and executed by Bruce Farwell, proposing a lump-sum payment of $100 to resolve the liabilities for the years in issue along with 2016, and [*3] 2017 2 on the basis of either Doubt as to Collectibility–Special Circumstances or Effective Tax Administration (ETA). The accompanying cover letter explained that all of Dr. Farwell’s remaining assets were needed to cover the cost of her ongoing medical care and that IRS collection action would impose substantial economic hardship.

During the telephone CDP hearing, the parties discussed the OIC request. SO Patterson informed Mr. Harn, Dr. Farwell’s attorney, that the OIC would be referred to the Centralized Offer in Compromise Unit (COIC) for evaluation and that the case would be suspended in Appeals pending COIC’s decision.

COIC Processing

At COIC the case was assigned to Offer Examiner Joyce Davis (OE Davis). On February 4, 2020, OE Davis spoke with Mr. Harn and requested submission of an updated Form 656 and financial information. On February 26, 2020, Mr. Harn submitted the requested documentation. On April 14, 2020, OE Davis left a voicemail for Mr. Harn stating that she “needed to discuss the review of the offer.”

On April 17, 2020, OE Davis left Mr. Harn a second voicemail, stating that she “was recommending the offer for acceptance based on ETA” and followed up with a fax containing the same information. Mr. Harn received the fax and both voicemails but did not respond. On September 22, 2020, COIC issued a letter of acceptance to Dr. Farwell and a copy to Mr. Harn. The letter stated in part: “We have accepted the offer in compromise you signed and dated on 5/9/2019. The acceptance date is the date of this letter. . . . We accepted your offer based on effective tax administration or doubt as to collectability with special circumstances.”

Discovery of Dr. Farwell’s Death

After issuing the acceptance letter, COIC returned the case to Appeals to close out the CDP hearing. On November 5, 2020, while reviewing Dr. Farwell’s information in the Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS), SO Patterson discovered that Dr. Farwell had died on March 12, 2020, six months before COIC’s issuance of the acceptance [*4] letter. Uncertain of how to proceed, SO Patterson reached out to his supervisors and received guidance which he detailed in his case notes:

Received email from Mary Hallman, Program Analyst – Office of Appeals containing SBSE Collections OIC Policies response to Ms. Hallman’s email to them regarding TP’s passing away would result in the rescission/termination of the TP’s offer.

Per IRM 5.8.9.2.4(3) Bullet 6 Note: “If an offer was erroneously accepted after the death of a taxpayer, the office responsible for completing the letter will also be responsible for inputting the TC 482. Use the date of death as the date for the TC 482. See IRM 5.8.7.5, Termination of Consideration.”

COIC will take the necessary actions under the IRM & issue the necessary letters to TP and POA.

SO Patterson reached out to COIC to share his discovery and direct them on next steps. On January 21, 2021, COIC’s OE Davis sent a letter to Dr. Farwell and Mr. Harn stating:

We are sorry, but we have terminated our consideration of this offer. This offer is not legally acceptable as submitted because Jacqueline Farwell is now deceased. . . . In order for an offer on behalf of this taxpayer to be considered, a new Form 656 must be filed showing Jacqueline Farwell as deceased, and the new Form 656 must be signed by the legal representative for the estate of the deceased. On February 18, 2021, SO Patterson contacted Dr. Farwell’s former attorney, Mr. Harn. During their conversation, Mr. Harn stated that the Estate was in the process of retaining his law firm. SO Patterson informed Mr. Harn that the CDP hearing could be continued on behalf of the Estate, once the Estate filed Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative. On February 23, 2021, Mr. Harn faxed SO Patterson Form 2848 confirming his representation of the Estate along with Form 56, Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship, identifying Bruce Farwell as the personal representative of the Estate. [*5] Challenge to COIC’s Termination of Consideration

On May 20, 2021, the Estate, now represented by Mr. Harn, faxed a letter to Appeals requesting that Dr. Farwell’s OIC be “re-instated to ‘accepted’ status.” The Estate asserted that Treasury Regulation § 301.7122-1(e)(5) expressly prohibits the IRS from reopening an accepted OIC unless one of three exceptions applies: (1) false information; (2) concealment; or (3) mutual mistake. The Estate emphasized that COIC’s termination letter was invalid as it focused only on Dr. Farwell’s death and failed to invoke any of the three reopening exceptions as the basis for terminating consideration of the offer.

On November 1, 2021, the case was transferred from SO Patterson to Appeals Officer Susan Bradford (AO Bradford). On November 22, 2021, AO Bradford spoke with Mr. Harn and confirmed that she had reviewed his May 20, 2021, letter, but did not agree that Appeals could reinstate the OIC. At Mr. Harn’s request, AO Bradford reached out to Appeals Team Manager David Fuller (ATM Fuller) who, in turn, sought guidance from Appeals Technical Advisor Matt McLaughlin (ATA McLaughlin). In an email ATA McLaughlin explained that pursuant to IRM 5.8.7.5 (Oct. 7, 2016), the IRS does not have authority to consider an OIC once a taxpayer dies. With respect to the Estate’s argument about the prohibition on reopening accepted offers, ATA McLaughlin suggested that the situation was covered by the mutual mistake exception. Specifically, ATA McLaughlin contended that Mr. Harn’s failure to inform OE Davis of Dr. Farwell’s death while the offer was under consideration resulted in a mutual mistake. ATM Fuller agreed with ATA McLaughlin’s reasoning and forwarded the email to AO Bradford along with copies of the relevant IRM provisions.

On December 8, 2021, AO Bradford left Mr. Harn a voicemail, citing the IRM and informing him that Dr. Farwell’s OIC could not be reopened. She also asked whether the Estate wished to pursue a different collection alternative. AO Bradford subsequently sent a letter to Mr. Harn scheduling a hearing for January 24, 2022. On January 23, 2022, before the CDP hearing, Mr. Harn faxed a letter to AO Bradford stating that he understood the IRS’s position to be that the OIC had been properly rescinded on the basis of mutual mistake. Mr. Harn argued that the mistake could not have been mutual because one of the parties, Dr. Farwell, was deceased at the time the mistake was made. He further contended that the IRS was barred from invoking mutual mistake because it was aware of Dr. Farwell’s terminal illness when the [*6] OIC was under consideration. Finally, Mr. Harn asserted that “there is a genuine dispute as to the existence of a tax liability.”

On January 24, 2022, AO Bradford spoke with Mr. Harn. She confirmed that, to date, Mr. Harn had not submitted a new offer or another collection alternative on the Estate’s behalf. AO Bradford reiterated to Mr. Harn that the IRS did not have the authority to accept offers from deceased taxpayers and that she would not be reinstating COIC’s acceptance of Dr. Farwell’s OIC. Mr. Harn requested that AO Bradford share his January 23, 2022, letter with her supervisors and get their feedback before making any final determination. AO Bradford forwarded Mr. Harn’s letter to ATM Fuller and ATA McLaughlin, who reviewed it and reaffirmed that their position remained unchanged because consideration of Dr. Farwell’s OIC was terminated upon her death.

On January 26, 2022, AO Bradford spoke with Mr. Harn and informed him that both ATA McLaughlin and ATM Fuller had reviewed his letter and that there was no change to the decision. On February 7, 2022, Mr. Harn left a voicemail for AO Bradford indicating the Estate’s interest in submitting a new OIC and requesting to speak directly with ATM Fuller or ATA McLaughlin. On February 8, 2022, AO Bradford left a voicemail for Mr. Harn with contact information for ATM Fuller and ATA McLaughlin and explained that a new OIC on behalf of the Estate could not be filed within the CDP hearing because of the ongoing probate proceedings.

On March 4, 2022, ATM Fuller spoke on the phone with Mr. Harn. Mr. Harn voiced his disagreement with AO Bradford’s refusal to reinstate acceptance of Dr. Farwell’s OIC and the existence of the Estate’s tax liabilities. ATM Fuller explained that both he and ATA McLaughlin agreed with AO Bradford that COIC’s actions were appropriate pursuant to IRM provisions, including IRM 5.8.7.5. When Mr. Harn raised the reopening exceptions, ATM Fuller said that the situation was covered by mutual mistake. ATM Fuller agreed to review Mr. Harn’s correspondence one final time before AO Bradford issued a determination.

On March 7, 2022, after reviewing both of Mr. Harn’s letters, ATM Fuller confirmed to AO Bradford that there was no change in his decision. On March 9, 2022, AO Bradford informed Mr. Harn by telephone that Appeals’ decision regarding Dr. Farwell’s OIC remained unchanged. She again explained that the Estate could file an OIC but [*7] that it would not be part of the CDP process and confirmed that the Estate did not wish to address any noncollection concerns. Notice of Determination

On April 21, 2022, AO Bradford issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under IRC Sections 6320 or 6330 sustaining the NFTL filing and agreeing with COIC’s determination to rescind its acceptance of Dr. Farwell’s OIC after discovering that she had died before the acceptance letter was issued. On May 23, 2022, the Estate timely petitioned this Court for review of the Notice of Determination, contending that respondent had erred by rescinding acceptance of Dr. Farwell’s OIC and sustaining the NFTL filing.

Discussion

I. General Principles

A. Summary Judgment The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Under Rule 121(a)(2), we may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Sundstrand Corp., 98 T.C. at 520. In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, we construe factual materials and inferences drawn from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. The nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in his or her pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. Rule 121(d); see Sundstrand Corp., 98 T.C. at 520. We conclude that there are no material facts in dispute and that the case is appropriate for summary adjudication.

B. Standard of Review Section 6330(d)(1) does not prescribe the standard of review that this Court should apply in reviewing an IRS administrative determination in a CDP case. The general parameters for such review are marked out by our precedents. Our review is de novo where the validity of the taxpayer’s underlying liability is properly at issue. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where there is no dispute as to the taxpayer’s underlying liability, we review the IRS decision for abuse of discretion. Cropper v. Commissioner, 826 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th [*8] Cir. 2016), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2014-139; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).

C. Underlying Liabilities Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that a taxpayer may challenge his or her underlying tax liability during a CDP hearing if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory Notice of Deficiency or did not otherwise have a prior opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability. This Court considers a taxpayer’s challenge to an underlying liability in a CDP case only if he or she properly raised that challenge at the administrative hearing. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 112–13 (2007). “An issue is not properly raised if the taxpayer fails . . . to present to Appeals any evidence with respect to that issue after being given a reasonable opportunity to [do so].” Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F3; see Giamelli, 129 T.C. at 115–16.

The parties agree that the Estate expressed its disagreement with the underlying liabilities; however, the Estate did not present, nor does it contend that it presented, any evidence to dispute the existence or amounts of any of Dr. Farwell’s self-reported tax liabilities for the years in issue. Given the Estate’s failure to present any evidence, despite the opportunity it had to do so, we find that the Estate failed to mount a proper challenge to the underlying liabilities at the CDP hearing and cannot maintain that challenge here. Accordingly, we review Appeals’ determination for abuse of discretion.

II. Abuse of Discretion Analysis

In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we will reject the determination of Appeals only if the determination was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Rule 142(a); Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 320 (2005), aff’d, 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006). We do not substitute our judgment for that of the Appeals officer, and we do not decide independently whether we believe that the lien notice should be withdrawn. See Murphy, 125 T.C. at 320. Instead, we consider whether, in the course of making its determination, the Appeals officer (1) verified that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have been met, (2) considered any relevant issue raised by the taxpayer that relates to the unpaid tax or the proposed lien action, and (3) determined whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes [*9] with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. § 6330(c)(1)–(3).

A. Verification This Court has authority to review satisfaction of the verification requirement regardless of whether the taxpayer raised that issue at the CDP hearing. See Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197, 202–03 (2008), supplemented by 136 T.C. 463 (2011). The Estate did not allege that AO Bradford failed to satisfy this requirement and has failed to set forth any facts disputing that Appeals followed this requirement. See Rules 121(d), 331(b)(4) (“Any issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded.”). Our review of the Notice of Determination and the accompanying record reflects that both SO Patterson and AO Bradford conducted a thorough review of the transcripts for the years in issue and verified that all applicable requirements were met.

B. Issues Raised At a CDP hearing a taxpayer may raise “any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy,” including proposing alternatives and challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions. See § 6330(c)(2)(A). The Estate claims that Appeals abused its discretion by directing COIC to rescind its acceptance of the OIC and by subsequently refusing to reinstate the OIC.

The parties disagree as to whether COIC’s September 22, 2020, letter created a valid and binding compromise. Respondent contends that Dr. Farwell’s death terminated the IRS’s authority to consider her pending offer and rendered the subsequent September 22, 2020, acceptance invalid. On that basis respondent maintains that no binding agreement to compromise Dr. Farwell’s liabilities was ever formed and that the reopening exceptions enumerated in the Treasury regulations do not apply.

The Estate, by contrast, contends that the IRS accepted the OIC on September 22, 2020, thereby creating a valid and binding agreement. The Estate maintains that the resulting agreement could be set aside only if one of the three reopening exceptions applied: false information, concealment, or mutual mistake. The Estate further contends that none of those exceptions, including mutual mistake, applies to these facts and that, under SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 93–95 (1943), respondent may not invoke grounds for rescission other than those cited by Appeals [*10] during the CDP hearing. Finally, the Estate argues that Appeals abused its discretion by engaging in improper ex parte communications.

1. Validity of Dr. Farwell’s OIC Section 7122 and its accompanying regulations provide the exclusive method of effecting a compromise. Shumaker v. Commissioner, 648 F.2d 1198, 1199–1200 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 288–89 (1929)), aff’g in part, rev’g and remanding in part T.C. Memo. 1979-71. An OIC is not considered accepted until, and unless, the taxpayer or their representative is notified, in writing, of the acceptance. Laurins v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1989), aff’g Norman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-265; Treas. Reg. § 301.7122-1(e)(1). We cannot find that a valid compromise was made in the absence of written notification issued to the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s representative. See Fincourt B Shelton PC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-273, at *6–7.

Dr. Farwell died on March 12, 2020. The parties agree that Mr. Harn’s authority to represent Dr. Farwell and Bruce Farwell’s authority under the durable power of attorney both terminated upon her death. As of March 12, 2020, the IRS had not yet issued written notification accepting Dr. Farwell’s OIC. Thus, when Dr. Farwell died, the requirements of section 7122 and its accompanying regulations for forming a valid compromise had not been satisfied.

COIC subsequently issued an acceptance letter to Dr. Farwell on September 22, 2020, and sent a copy to Mr. Harn. Although Mr. Harn received the letter, he was no longer authorized to represent Dr. Farwell and had not yet been retained to represent the Estate. Thus, when COIC issued the acceptance letter, there was no living taxpayer nor authorized taxpayer representative to whom the IRS could issue the written notification of acceptance as required by Treasury Regulation § 301.7122-1(e)(1).

Section 7122 and its accompanying regulations do not expressly address the administrative treatment of an OIC when the taxpayer dies before written acceptance. The IRM addresses that circumstance. IRM 5.8.7.5(1) states that “[c]onsideration of an offer must be terminated upon the death of a single proponent.”

Although the IRM does not have the force of law, this provision is consistent with and complements section 7122 and its accompanying regulations by prescribing administrative procedures for circumstances [*11] like those presented here. Applying the IRM guidance, Appeals determined that as of March 12, 2020, the date of Dr. Farwell’s death, COIC no longer had authority to accept Dr. Farwell’s OIC. Accordingly, COIC’s September 22, 2020, notification of acceptance could not and did not create a valid and binding compromise. Appeals does not abuse its discretion when it adheres to applicable IRM guidelines in evaluating a collection alternative. See Thompson v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 173, 189 (2013). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in Appeals’ determination.

2. Reopening Exceptions and Chenery Doctrine The Estate contends that Appeals sustained the rescission of Dr.

Farwell’s OIC on the basis of mutual mistake and that respondent now seeks to defend Appeals’ determination on the new ground that Dr. Farwell’s death terminated any further consideration of her offer. While the reopening exceptions are not applicable in the current situation where no valid and binding compromise was formed, we still consider the Estate’s argument that respondent’s basis for defending Appeals’ determination constitutes an impermissible post hoc rationalization under the Chenery doctrine.

The Chenery doctrine generally precludes a reviewing court from upholding an agency determination on grounds not invoked by the agency itself. See, e.g., Antioco v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-35, at *25; Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-274, at *22–23; Salahuddin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-141, 103 T.C.M. (CCH) 1764, 1768. In determining the basis for Appeals’ determination, we look to the reasons offered in the Notice of Determination as well as the contemporaneous case activity notes. Accord Melasky v. Commissioner, 151 T.C. 93, 106 (2018), aff’d, 803 F. App’x 732 (5th Cir. 2020); Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8, 24–25 (2018).

The administrative record reflects that Appeals never treated mutual mistake as an independent basis for terminating consideration of Dr. Farwell’s OIC. When SO Patterson directed COIC to issue the termination letter, he acted pursuant to IRM 5.8.9.2.4(3) (July 7, 2020), which specifically references actions to take when an offer has been erroneously accepted after a taxpayer’s death and cross-references IRM 5.8.7.5. The letter sent by COIC on January 21, 2021, states that the offer is not legally acceptable and cannot be considered because of the death of Dr. Farwell. The COIC letter makes no mention of the reopening exceptions or mutual mistake. It was only after the Estate [*12] raised the reopening exceptions that Appeals asserted that this was a situation of mutual mistake. While Appeals did discuss mutual mistake, it was alongside its consistent position that the IRS lacked authority to accept an offer from a deceased taxpayer. The administrative record contains consistent references to IRM 5.8.7.5. Most significantly, the Notice of Determination, while mentioning mutual mistake in the context of administrative history, does not reference it at all in the summary of its rationale. Instead, the Notice of Determination states that “[t]he Offer was initially accepted; however, it was rescinded once it was realized that the taxpayer had died prior to the acceptance of the offer. Appeals is in agreement with that determination.”

We therefore find that Appeals’ discussion of mutual mistake served an ancillary function at best; supportive of, but not determinative of, Appeals’ decision to sustain the rescission. Respondent’s position before this Court is consistent with the principal rationale reflected in the Administrative Record: The IRS lacked authority to consider Dr. Farwell’s OIC after her death. Accordingly, there is no issue under the Chenery doctrine.

3. Ex Parte Communication Finally, the Estate contends that Program Analyst Hallman and SO Patterson engaged in prohibited ex parte communications by discussing Dr. Farwell’s death with Collections and COIC. The ex parte rules are designed to protect Appeals’ independence. Ex parte communications occur when an Appeals employee discusses a taxpayer’s case with employees of other IRS functions, without the taxpayer or their representative being given an opportunity to participate in the discussion. Rev. Proc. 2012-18, § 2.01(1), 2012-10 I.R.B. 455, 456. Some ex parte communications are permissible, including communications between Appeals and an originating function regarding ministerial, administrative, or procedural matters. Id. § 2.03(2), 2012-10 I.R.B. at 458.

After COIC approves an OIC, an Appeals officer must complete Form 12257, Summary Notice of Determination, Waiver of Right to Judicial Review of a Collection Due Process Determination. See IRM 8.22.7.10.4.4 (Aug. 26, 2020). Form 12257 requires the Appeals officer to verify and attest that all applicable laws and administrative procedures for the OIC have been met. SO Patterson was carrying out this required verification process when he checked IDRS and discovered Dr. Farwell’s [*13] date of death. The subsequent communications between Program Analyst Hallman, Collections, SO Patterson, and COIC were about the legal insufficiency of the OIC. The governing revenue procedure is clear that making inquiries to ensure all legal requirements are met is the Appeals officer’s responsibility in a CDP hearing and that all communications made for this purpose are permissible. Rev. Proc. 2012-18, § 2.03(10)(b), 2012-10 I.R.B. at 460.

Asking Collections for guidance and informing COIC of Dr. Farwell’s death did not compromise Appeals’ independence or violate the ex parte rules. To the contrary, the actions of Program Analyst Hallman and SO Patterson exemplify Appeals’ independence. Their actions demonstrate active verification of legal compliance rather than a mere rubberstamping of COIC’s acceptance. Accordingly, we find that Appeals did not engage in any prohibited ex parte communications.

C. Balancing The Estate does not allege that AO Bradford failed to consider “whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.” See § 6330(c)(3)(C). Thus, it has conceded this issue. See Rules 121(d), 331(b)(4); see also Ansley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-46, at *19. III. Conclusion

Finding no abuse of discretion in any respect, we will grant summary judgment for respondent and affirm Appeals’ determination to sustain the proposed collection action. In reaching our holding, we have considered all the parties’ arguments and, to the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant or without merit.

To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order and decision will be entered.