- 6 -
followed those guidelines by requiring that petitioner provide
current financial information to evaluate whether her offer in
compromise was adequate and should be accepted. The decision not
to process petitioner’s offer in compromise on account of her
failure to submit current financial information was consistent
with prescribed guidelines and was a reasonable exercise of the
Commissioner’s discretion.
Respondent erred in not sending petitioner a written notice
that respondent had rejected her 1997 offer in compromise. See
former sec. 301.7122-1(d)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs. (taxpayer
must be given prompt notice in writing of rejection of offer in
compromise). Petitioner contends that, because of that error, we
should remand this case to respondent’s Office of Appeals for
consideration of her offer in compromise based on her 1997
financial information. We disagree.
In 1997, respondent twice considered and rejected
petitioner’s $3,618 offer to compromise a tax liability of about
$86,000. Respondent concluded that the net realizable equity in
petitioner and Mr. Moorhous’s assets was at least $125,000
greater than the $3,618 amount offered in compromise. We have no
reason to believe that result would change if respondent again
considered petitioner’s offer in compromise based on her
financial information for 1997.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011