- 12 -
Zukle and the clarification of the mistake through Mr. McCabe’s
diligence occurred between the time the offer was made and its
acceptance. There is no evidence or reason to believe that
petitioner’s offer was originally based on his erroneous
assumption of the possible refund windfall in the first instance,
but if he later wished to withdraw the offer, he had time to do
so. There was no mistake at the time the offer was submitted by
petitioner or when it was accepted.
As previously noted, a valid offer in compromise
conclusively settles a taxpayer’s liability. The reference in
section 6015(g)(1) to section 7122 indicates that under the offer
in compromise petitioner would not be entitled to a refund or
credit even if relief was ultimately granted under section
6015(b) or (f).7 As previously stated, regardless of the offer
in compromise, no refund is permitted under section 6015(c).
Sec. 6015(g)(3).
Petitioner is correct that Mr. Zukle made a mistake when he
told petitioner that he would be entitled to refunds if partial
7Although not applicable to the instant case because
petitioner’s request for relief was filed before its effective
date, sec. 1.6015-1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs., supports this
position because it provides that a requesting spouse is not
entitled to relief from joint and several liability under sec.
6015(b), (c), or (f) for any tax year for which the requesting
spouse entered into an offer in compromise with the Commissioner
that disposed of the same liability that is the subject of the
claim for relief. Cf. Hopkins v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 451, 462
n.16 (2003).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011