- 10 -
Petitioners next argue their offer was accepted orally by
Mr. Sower. While it is not clear which offer petitioners refer
to, they have failed to prove that Mr. Sower said or did anything
that would constitute acceptance of any offer they made.
Both parties offered testimony regarding the alleged oral
agreement. Mr. Streck testified that Mr. Sower orally
represented that he would accept petitioners' signed offer in
compromise. Petitioners' accountant, Mr. Mancini, who was
present during meetings between Mr. Streck and Mr. Sower, did not
recall any oral acceptance by Mr. Sower. Mr. Sower testified
that he never told Mr. Streck that he would accept an offer in
compromise relating to the years in issue. Mr. Sower testified
that he "did not have the authority to accept or reject offers in
compromises."11 We believe Mr. Sower's testimony. It is
consistent with the plain language on the Form 656. The
testimony of petitioners' accountant is consistent with Mr.
Sower's. Mr. Streck, on the other hand, has a long history of
dishonest, criminal behavior and lacks credibility. We find that
Mr. Sower never made, or purported to make, an oral acceptance of
10(...continued)
signature on the first Form 656 constituted an acceptance, it
makes no sense that they withdrew the first offer in order to
make an offer to pay more.
11Mr. Sower did not have the authority to accept such an
offer. See Boulez v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 213 (1981),
affd. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Deleg. Order No. 11 (Rev.
23), 1994-1 C.B. 324; Deleg. Order No. 11 (Rev. 22), 1992-1 C.B.
488.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011