- 8 -
petitioner may have executed the form of decision with the
understanding that he would be permitted to file an offer in
compromise, such an agreement is not reflected in the record
presented. Moreover, even assuming that the parties agreed to
such a procedure, the filing of an offer in compromise based on
doubt as to collectibility, subsequent to entry of decision by
the Court, does not provide a basis for setting aside what is
otherwise a final decision.3
Petitioner's contention that Revenue Agent Rice determined
petitioner's status as an employee during the audit stage of the
case is likewise misplaced. The revenue agent's report that
petitioner relies on is not a determination that is binding on
either respondent or the Court. See Casey v. Commissioner, 38
T.C. 357, 381 (1962); Wilson v. Commissioner, 16 B.T.A. 1280,
1285 (1929); Gilmartin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1973-247. To
the contrary, respondent's final determination regarding
petitioner's tax liability for 1991 and 1992 is set forth in the
notice of deficiency dated September 13, 1995. That notice
clearly indicates that respondent determined that petitioner is
liable for self-employment tax.
In sum, the decision entered in this case is now final, and
petitioner has failed to persuade us that such decision
3 At the hearing on petitioner's motion, counsel for
respondent stated that petitioner was still free to file an offer
in compromise based on doubt as to collectibility.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011