- 10 -
for installment payments that apprised it of the allocations
between tax and interest proposed by the Commissioner).
Moreover, respondent’s application of petitioners’ payments
was reasonable. The letter that confirmed the installment
agreement between petitioners and respondent is the executed
written installment agreement.8 Sec. 301.6159-1(b)(2), Proced. &
Admin. Regs. We found the installment agreement to be silent as
to whether petitioners were able to designate the application of
the payments to certain years. As a result, it was reasonable
for respondent to apply the payments to the TFRP liabilities
first, pursuant to its own procedures. See Rev. Rul. 73-305,
1973-2 C.B. 43.
Further, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, to
which this case would be appealable but for section 7463, has
held that estoppel against the Government also requires “some
affirmative misconduct by a government agent”. United States v.
Guy, 978 F.2d 934, 937 (6th Cir. 1992).9 The evidence does not
8 Sec. 301.6159-1(b)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. provides,
in relevant part:
(2) Form of installment agreement. A written installment
agreement may take the form of * * * a written confirmation
of an agreement entered into by the taxpayer and the
director that is mailed or personally delivered to the
taxpayer.
9 To define “affirmative misconduct”, the Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit stated that the party claiming equitable
estoppel against the Government must establish “%more than mere
negligence, delay, inaction, or failure to follow an internal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011