- 10 -
legally due tax does not constitute detrimental reliance).
Petitioners have the ability to withdraw from the installment
agreement at any time. The monthly payment does not even cover
the interest accruing on their liabilities. Rather than a
detriment, petitioners have received the benefit of a favorable
installment agreement for 1981 and 1982, a release of the wage
levy, and a delay in the collection of their 1983 tax liability
for several additional years. An agent’s promise to abate or not
collect the tax does not create a legal right. See United States
v. Asmar, 827 F.2d 907, 915 (3d Cir. 1987) (no detriment where a
taxpayer is not legally entitled to benefit from an agent’s
promise not to collect).
In another case commenced by petitioners that related to the
collection of their tax liabilities, Morgan v. United States, 89
AFTR 2d 2002-1501, 2002-1 USTC par. 50,416 (W.D. Mo. 2001), the
District Court held that petitioners could not rely upon the oral
representations of Cooper to vary the terms of their installment
agreement. In that case, petitioners maintained that Cooper had
represented to them that “the IRS would not take further
collection efforts so long as Plaintiffs remained current on
their payments.” Id. The IRS applied an overpayment from 1999
to petitioners’ total unpaid account. The District Court granted
summary judgment for the Government, noting that the Government
had the right to retain the refund with or without the agreement,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011