- 6 -
the periods at issue in that hearing, it had to be
included in the installment agreement since all periods
have to be included in an agreement for approval of
that agreement.
* * * * * * *
Mr. Haws insisted that the installment agreement was a
binding contract for the amount of $1,455.00 only and
that he should not have to pay more. I told Mr. Haws
that what he was suggesting was an offer in compromise
not an installment agreement since the balance due
including penalty and interest was greater than
$1,455.00.
* * * * * * *
I asked Mr. Haws if he wanted to submit an offer in
compromise in the context of the CDP hearing or a
financial statement to demonstrate financial hardship,
but he said no, he wanted to go to tax court to contest
the balance due instead.
On June 23, 2003, the trial was held in this case. On
August 12, 2003, respondent filed a motion to dismiss Jill R.
Haws for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that no notice of
determination was issued to her for 1992. On September 11, 2003,
petitioners filed their memorandum in opposition to respondent’s
motion.
Discussion
A. The Parties’ Positions
Petitioners contend that when they entered into the
installment agreement, Appeals Officer Baker had represented to
Mr. Haws that it would cover all unpaid tax liabilities then
outstanding, in accordance with what respondent admits to be
established policy regarding installment agreements. Therefore,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011