- 7 -
opportunity to settle his case as were other similarly situated
taxpayers; (2) the notice of deficiency is invalid because
respondent did not audit RRA; (3) the closing agreement “relates
only to the items * * * relating to * * * [RRA], the ‘TAX
SHELTER’ defined in the Closing Agreement” and Provizer v.
Commissioner, supra, did not involve items relating to RRA; and
(4) the closing agreement is invalid “because it was executed as
a result of a misrepresentation of fact or fraud perpetrated by
the Internal Revenue Service”. Respondent’s motion and
petitioner’s opposition thereto were set for hearing on November
4, 1998.
That hearing focused on whether there was a malfeasance or a
misrepresentation of a material fact on the part of respondent at
the time that the closing agreement was executed. Subsequent to
the hearing, the Court issued an order denying respondent’s
motion for entry of decision on the ground that “there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondent committed
malfeasance or misrepresented a material fact in obtaining the
closing agreement in issue.” This case was then calendared for
trial.
Discussion
Section 7121(a) provides that the Secretary may enter into
an agreement in writing “with any person relating to the
liability of such person * * * in respect of any internal revenue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011