- 7 -
amounts and the claim for refund or credit are separate and
distinct items. See secs. 6211, 6212, 6402, 7422. A reasonable
person might, as petitioners did, compromise one and not the
other so as to avoid full liability for both.
The effect of the Form 3363, Acceptance of Proposed
Disallowance of Claim for Refund or Credit, is not changed simply
because petitioners signed it "only in the context of the overall
settlement". The form states that the IRS will not consider the
claim but that the taxpayer retains the right to sue IRS "on the
disallowance." Petitioners, who state that they consulted an
accountant about the form, knew or should have known that the
claimed credit would not be allowed. They knew or should have
known that the disallowed credit would not offset their tax
liability for 1993 or any other year. There may have been a
unilateral mistake by petitioners as to the effect of their
agreement. Without more, however, a unilateral mistake by a
party to a settlement agreement is not a basis for voiding the
agreement. See Korangy v. Commissioner, 893 F.2d 69 (4th Cir.
1990), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-2; Quigley v. IRS, 289 F.2d 878
(D.C. Cir. 1960).
Further, a refusal by petitioners to sign the Forms 2297 and
3363 would not prevent the IRS from denying their claim for the
credit. Petitioners' signing of Forms 3363 and 2297 served only
to accelerate the running of the period of limitations on, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011