Estate of Donald H. Ray, Deceased, Patricia G. Ray, Independent Executrix, and Patricia G. Ray - Page 15

          conclude that only the second offer is subject to acceptance for            
          the Commissioner.  Specifically, petitioners argue:                         
                    The word "offer" in the second * * * paragraph [of                
               the Form 870-L(AD)] refers to the last use of the word                 
               "offer" in the first * * * paragraph, which is the                     
               offer to waive the restrictions on assessment and                      
               collection.  Simply stated, this language meant that                   
               the assessment and collection of the agreed to                         
               liability could not take place until after the waiver                  
               of those restrictions was accepted on behalf of the                    
               Commissioner. * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.]                                
          We find petitioners' interpretation unconvincing.                           
               Petitioners argue that the term "undersigned", as used in              
          the Form 870-L(AD), is ambiguous because the Form 870-L(AD)                 
          contained a signature line for both the taxpayer and respondent's           
          representative.  On May 2, 1991, when Mrs. Ray executed the Form            
          870-L(AD) on behalf of RDB, her signature was the only signature            
          on the Form 870-L(AD), and she became the "undersigned".  We                
          conclude that petitioners' arguments that the Form 870-L(AD) is             
          ambiguous are without merit.                                                
               Petitioners argue that the Palka and Balboni letters                   
          constitute an offer, and signing the Form 870-L(AD) was the                 
          specified method for accepting that offer.  Respondent argues               
          that, by signing the Form 870-L(AD), petitioners extended an                
          offer of settlement, and respondent accepted petitioners' offer             
          on December 6, 1991.  Respondent contends that the Balboni and              
          Palka letters solicited an offer from petitioners and set a                 
          deadline for petitioners to submit the settlement agreement to              
          the appeals office.  The parties do not dispute that an agreement           

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