17
before it the taxpayer's letter purporting to accept the
Commissioner's settlement offer and the Internal Revenue
Service's letter purporting to confirm that the taxpayer had
"accepted the original settlement offer". Id. at 209, 211.
Nothing reveals that the taxpayers in Treaty Pines had before
them a document such as the Form 870-L(AD) that indicated no
settlement would be reached until the 870-L(AD) was accepted by
the Commissioner. The court held that the exchange of letters
was sufficient to constitute a settlement agreement. Id. at 211.
Petitioners, on the other hand, were required to return the
executed Form 870-L(AD) to respondent. Petitioners complied with
this requirement. The language set forth in the Form 870-L(AD)
did not coincide with petitioners' interpretation of the Balboni
letter. The document that petitioners argue constitutes an
acceptance, the Form 870-L(AD), is replete with statements that
RDB was submitting an offer to respondent that did not become
binding until accepted by respondent. After petitioners returned
the executed Form 870-L(AD) to respondent, petitioners never
received any confirmation analogous to the confirmation received
by the taxpayers in Treaty Pines.
The terms of the Form 870-L(AD) and the circumstances under
which the Palka and Balboni letters were created and exchanged
belie petitioners' interpretation of those documents. There is
no doubt that Balboni was not precise in his use of the terms
"offer" and "acceptance". However, after reviewing the entire
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