- 22 -
other Courts of Appeals had held that the lookback period is not
automatically tolled by a prior bankruptcy proceeding but that
equitable considerations could permit tolling on a case-by-case
basis. Id.
We believe that at the time petitioners rejected AO Martin’s
suggested installment agreement, and at the time the Notice of
Determination was issued, there was sufficient reason to raise a
doubt as to petitioners’ tax liabilities for 1991, 1992, and
1993, so as to justify petitioners’ rejection of an installment
agreement based in part upon a concession of the 1991-93
liabilities.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Young v. United
States, 533 U.S. 976 (2001), on September 25, 2001, which
predated by more than 3 months respondent’s Notice of
Determination. If AO Martin’s research had revealed the grant of
certiorari, prudence might have prompted postponing further
action pending the likelihood that the Supreme Court would
eventually resolve the equitable tolling issue, and lay to rest
the “doubt as to liability” question for purposes of petitioners’
Offer in Compromise. Since the Supreme Court resolved the
tolling issue only after the above-described crucial events had
transpired, we believe that petitioners are entitled to
reconsider their rejection of the proposed installment agreement,
and if they desire to do so, offer a collection alternative.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011