- 17 -
virtue of not having received a notice of deficiency or
otherwise. Because petitioners had (and availed themselves of)
previous opportunities to dispute their underlying transferee tax
liabilities, section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars them from challenging
those liabilities in this collection proceeding.
In conclusion, principles of res judicata apply here and
operate, along with section 6330(c)(2)(B), to prevent petitioners
from challenging in this collection proceeding the existence and
amount of their transferee tax liabilities.9
C. Petitioners’ Offers in Compromise
In their various offers in compromise on the basis of doubt
as to liability, each petitioner proposed to pay $50 in
satisfaction of the unpaid balance of assessments of transferee
liability. Respondent rejected these offers in compromise on
grounds that the transferee liabilities had been determined in
the transferee liability cases and that petitioners were not in
compliance with income tax filing requirements. We review
respondent’s action for abuse of discretion, on the basis of the
arguments and information available to the Appeals officer when
the discretion was exercised. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
at 610.
9 Respondent has not raised and we do not reach any issue as
to whether petitioners are also precluded from challenging their
underlying tax liabilities by sec. 6330(c)(4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011