is not required to consider whether it will receive revenue from the collection or whether the collection will negatively impact the taxpayer’s business. As this Court has noted, there is little about this requirement in Sixth Circuit case law and, in most cases, a reviewing court affirms the Appeals Officer’s determination that the balancing test was correctly applied. Living Care Alternatives of Utica, 411 F.3d at 627. Current case law supports the Government’s argument that the IRS is not required to include in its balancing analysis whether it “will receive any revenue from a levy or sale, or whether the business will have to close down due to the levy and sale.” Living Care Alternatives of Utica, 411 F.3d at 628; Medlock v. United States, 325 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1079 (C.D.Cal.2003) (<HOLDING>). Appellants also complain that the Appeals
holding that a victim impact aggravator was not unconstitutionally vague because it directed the jury to consider inter alia the effect of the crime on the victims family recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal holding that the appeals officer was not required to consider the impact of a levy on the taxpayers customers holding that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability and that there is no requirement that the united states consider whether it will receive any revenue from the levy holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime