W. Richard and Janice J. Morgan - Page 10

                                       - 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