- 8 -
issue a Notice of Determination without reviewing petitioner’s
proposed offer in compromise was arbitrary, capricious, or
without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner,
112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
In the present case the Appeals officer actually was in
possession of petitioner’s offer in compromise before the Notice
of Determination was mailed. Petitioner testified that she
believed that she was to contact the Appeals officer by July 31,
2002, and that she mailed her offer in compromise materials to
him on that date. She expected prompt delivery of the materials,
but they were delayed because of security procedures in effect
with respect to mail at the time in question. Nevertheless,
petitioner’s offer in compromise was received by the Appeals
office on August 8, 2002, and the Notice of Determination was not
mailed until August 12, 2002. The Appeals officer closed
petitioner’s case for a determination based upon petitioner’s
file on August 5, 2002, and he did not review petitioner’s offer
in compromise because it was received after he administratively
closed her case. The unusual circumstance here is that the
Appeals officer had petitioner’s offer in compromise material on
his desk before the Determination Letter was mailed. The record
indicates that he could have examined her material and conducted
the Appeals office hearing. Instead, he refused to examine
petitioner’s materials and referred her to the “Automated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011