- 7 -
constrained respondent’s authority to take such action.
Respondent was therefore fully justified in crediting
petitioner’s 1997 overpayment against petitioner’s 1988
liability.
We also reject petitioner’s contention that respondent’s
acceptance of the offer in compromise served to invalidate
respondent’s prior action in crediting the 1997 overpayment
against the 1988 liability. In order to induce respondent to
accept the offer in compromise, petitioner agreed not only to pay
a fixed amount of money, but also to forgo any refund
attributable to an overpayment of tax for any taxable year
through 1998. Thus, the premise for petitioner’s contention;
i.e., that the mere payment of the fixed amount of money upon
submission of the offer in compromise “wiped the slate clean”
insofar as his 1988 tax liability was concerned, is fatally
flawed.6
6 We remind petitioner that under paragraph (j) of the
offer in compromise he remained liable for the full amount of the
liabilities for 1988 and 1989 unless and until respondent
accepted the offer and he “met all the terms and conditions of
the offer.” As spelled out in paragraph (g) of the offer in
compromise, one of those terms and conditions was his agreement
to forgo any refund attributable to an overpayment of tax for any
taxable year through 1998.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011