- 11 -
Mr. Talbott believed he had no authority to reinstate
petitioner’s offer-in-compromise. He believed only the National
Office could reinstate the offer-in-compromise. He stated: “The
National Office would still have to do the reinstatement by
itself” and the “National Office would have the call”. Mr.
Talbott reviewed the Internal Revenue Manual. The manual was
silent as to whether an Appeals officer has authority to
reinstate an offer-in-compromise.
Mr. Coy sent Mr. Talbott a copy of petitioner’s 1998 return.
Mr. Talbott received the copy of petitioner’s 1998 return on
February 16, 2001. Mr. Talbott forwarded it to the Austin
Service Center, where it was processed by the IRS as an original
return. Petitioner’s transcript of account for 1998 states
“return filed and tax assessed” on April 2, 2001.
Petitioner never personally met with, or spoke to, Mr.
Talbott.
The Appeals settlement memorandum prepared by Mr. Talbott
concluded that the notice of intent to levy was appropriate. Mr.
Talbott’s evaluation concluded:
The Offer in Compromise was defaulted because the IRS
did not have a record of the taxpayer filing Form 1040
for 1998. The taxpayer’s representative claimed to
have timely mailed the tax return for 1998 on October
15, 1999, but the tax return was not sent by certified
mail and the representative does not have any evidence
to prove that the return was mailed. The taxpayer did
not respond to the IRS’s requests to file the tax
return, which resulted in the offer being defaulted.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011