William D. Little - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

          petitioner became aware of the estate’s income tax liabilities              
          were to pay debts that had priority over those due to the United            
          States.                                                                     
               In November 1993, petitioner submitted a Form 656, Offer in            
          Compromise, to respondent.  The offer concerned both decedent’s             
          and the estate’s income tax liabilities and was accompanied by a            
          check drawn on the estate's checking account in the amount of               
          $17,586.07, which was the amount petitioner proposed to                     
          compromise the liabilities for decedent’s 1989 income tax                   
          liability and the estate’s income tax liabilities for 1989, 1990,           
          and 1991.  The Form 656 contained the following statement:  "This           
          offer in compromise of $17,586.07 represents the remaining value            
          of the estate.  There are no future sources of funds available."            
          Respondent did not accept the Offer in Compromise.  Several                 
          months later, respondent returned the Offer in Compromise and the           
          uncashed check without any explanation.                                     
               After petitioner informed Mr. Lahr and Mr. Dilg of the                 
          returned offer and the uncashed check, they had a series of                 
          meetings and conversations with representatives of respondent,              
          including a meeting with supervisory personnel of respondent.  As           
          a result of these conversations and meetings, Mr. Lahr and Mr.              
          Dilg believed they had negotiated a final resolution with                   
          respondent.  Mr. Dilg and Mr. Lahr informed petitioner that the             
          matter had been resolved with respondent, resulting in the case             





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011