- 38 -
The Court of Appeals found that the taxpayer had satisfied the
jurisdictional requirements for a tax refund suit. Thus, the
U.S. District Court could review whether the taxpayer’s offer-in-
compromise had been properly defaulted. See id.5
In this case, petitioner is not asserting a cause of action
under contract law. See id. at 1068-1069. Petitioner seeks a
finding from the Court that respondent abused his discretion in
determining to proceed with collection, which is within our
jurisdiction under section 6330. Respondent’s determination to
proceed with collection arises from defaulting petitioner’s
offer-in-compromise. Whether the offer-in-compromise was
properly defaulted is a relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax
or proposed levy. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). Respondent issued
petitioner a notice of intent to levy on the basis of
petitioner’s unpaid tax liability.
5 On remand, the U.S. District Court held that the
taxpayer’s failure to timely pay his 1995 taxes was a material
breach of the offer-in-compromise. Further, the court held that
“the doctrine of substantial performance has no relevance in this
case as the Plaintiff completely failed to timely pay his 1995
federal income tax liability, and instead waited to pay it until
April 10, 1997, so that he could offset his tax liability for
1995 with his losses in 1996.” Roberts v. United States, 225 F.
Supp. 2d 1138, 1149 (E.D. Mo. 2001).
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011