- 11 -
that was submitted and accepted after the effective date of
section 6015.
Petitioner argues that the offer in compromise should be set
aside because Mr. Zukle mistakenly stated that refunds would be
allowed for any relief granted under section 6015(c).
Petitioner claims that the projected refund allowance would have
eliminated his 1986 and 1987 liabilities, fully paid his
outstanding balance for 1993 through 1999, and given him a refund
of approximately $81,000. Petitioner contends that he would not
have agreed to an offer in compromise if he had known he was
waiving his right to any refunds.
Petitioner’s argument is illogical. Petitioner claims
reliance upon the mistaken suggestion in the May 7, 2001, letter
that he might receive a refund. That date was approximately 2
weeks after he had submitted the form offering to compromise his
liabilities and waive any refunds. Because the Form 656 states
that petitioner would no longer be able to contest the amount of
his tax liability, there is no indication that at the time the
offer was submitted petitioner was under the impression that if
the offer was approved, then respondent would issue a refund
based on relief granted under section 6015(b), (c), or (f). On
the basis of petitioner’s own argument, such an offer would have
been unnecessary had petitioner believed that he would receive
the mistakenly suggested refund. The incorrect statement by Mr.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011