- 9 -
1982); sec. 301.7122-1T(d)(5), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs,
supra. In order to reopen the case, the mistake must be mutual
and “of material fact sufficient to cause the offer agreement to
be reformed or set aside”. Sec. 301.7122-1T(d)(5), Temporary
Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra.6
An accepted offer in compromise is properly analyzed as a
contract between the parties. United States v. Donovan, 348 F.3d
509, 512-513 (6th Cir. 2003); Roberts v. United States, 242 F.3d
1065 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Timms v. United States, supra at 833-836;
United States v. Lane, 303 F.2d 1, 4 (5th Cir. 1962); Robbins
Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 420, 436 (1969).
Consequently, an offer in compromise, like certain other
agreements between the Commissioner and taxpayers, is governed by
general principles of contract law. Cf. Duncan v. Commissioner,
121 T.C. __, __ (2003) (slip. op. at 6) (contract law applied to
stipulated arbitration agreement); Bankamerica Corp. v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. 1, 12 (1997) (contract law applied to
stipulations of fact); Dorchester Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner,
108 T.C. 320, 330 (1997) (contract law applied to settlement
agreement), affd. without published opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir.
2000); Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 780 (1989) (contract
6The final regulations under sec. 7122 contain the same
exception for a mutual mistake of material fact. See sec.
301.7122-1(e)(5)(iii), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011