- 18 -
Given that each petitioner had previously entered into a
stipulated decision agreeing to transferee liability of $58,008
plus interest (an amount that by May 11, 2001, had grown to
$89,079.25), we do not believe the Appeals officer abused his
discretion in rejecting each petitioner’s offer to compromise
that transferee liability for $50. Regulations promulgated under
section 7122(c) provide that the Secretary may compromise a
liability on various grounds, including doubt as to liability,
but state: “Doubt as to liability does not exist where the
liability has been established by a final court decision or
judgment concerning the existence or amount of the liability.”
Sec. 301.7122-1T(b)(2), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs, 64 Fed.
Reg. 39020 (July 12, 1999). As previously discussed, the
stipulated decisions in petitioners’ transferee liability cases
constitute final decisions on the merits. See Baptiste v.
Commissioner, 29 F.3d at 436. Respondent’s decision to reject
petitioners’ offers in compromise based on doubt as to liability
was a reasonable exercise of discretion given that there was no
doubt as to petitioners’ liabilities, within the meaning of the
applicable regulations or otherwise.10
10 In light of this holding, we need not address
petitioners’ argument that respondent erred in determining that
they were noncompliant with income tax filing requirements.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011