James Dwain & Jill R. Haws - Page 8

                                        - 7 -                                         
          petitioners argue, if the 1992 year was not included in the                 
          installment agreement, then it must be because their 1992 balance           
          due was zero.  Alternatively, petitioners contend that regardless           
          of whether the 1992 tax year was included in the installment                
          agreement, respondent should be equitably estopped from                     
          collecting from them more than the $1,455 listed on the Form                
          433-D.                                                                      
               Respondent’s position is confused and inconstant.  As                  
          previously noted, respondent’s notice of determination expressly            
          states that the installment agreement which petitioners signed on           
          June 1, 2000, “included the 1992 period as well as other periods            
          for which liabilities existed”.  In his trial memorandum, filed             
          at trial, respondent argues that petitioners entered into an                
          installment agreement with respect to the unpaid 1992 tax                   
          liability on April 3, 2001, and then failed to make any voluntary           
          payments on the installment agreement.  On opening posttrial                
          brief, respondent contends ambivalently that “On April 3, 2001,             
          an installment agreement between petitioner James Haws and the              
          Service became effective, or was entered onto the Service’s                 
          computer systems, for tax year 1992 in addition to the years                
          affected by the prior CDP case.”5  On reply brief, respondent               


               5 This proposed finding of fact tracks the parties’                    
          stipulation number four, except for the final phrase “in addition           
          to the years affected by the prior CDP case”, which does not                
          appear in the stipulation.                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011