- 37 -
1. Jurisdiction To Consider Petitioner’s
Offer-in-Compromise
Respondent contends that the Court has no jurisdiction to
determine whether petitioner’s offer-in-compromise was properly
terminated. Respondent contends that only the Court of Federal
Claims or a U.S. District Court may review this determination.
We disagree.
In Roberts v. United States, 242 F.3d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2001),
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and
remanded the order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri transferring the case to the Court of
Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals
held that the U.S. District Court did have jurisdiction over the
taxpayer’s claim for refund, even though the tax liability
resulted from an offer-in-compromise that the IRS had defaulted.
The Court of Appeals reasoned:
Roberts is not requesting, for example, damages
from the government for breach of contract, which would
constitute a claim based purely upon a government
contract. Certainly, the district court does not have
jurisdiction over additional contract claims Roberts
may wish to assert against the government under the
terms of the OIC * * *.
Instead, Roberts has paid taxes that he alleges
were illegally or erroneously collected. Tax cases
heard in the district courts often involve offers in
compromise * * *. The fact that the alleged collection
error stems from the cancellation of Roberts’s OIC
contract with the IRS does not negate the fact that the
monies at issue were paid pursuant to the internal-
revenue laws. [Id. at 1069.]
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011