- 41 -
offer-in-compromise); Fortenberry v. United States, 49 AFTR 2d
82-1027, 82-1 USTC par. 9191 (S.D. Miss. 1981) (taxpayer’s
failure to pay additional amounts under collateral agreement was
breach of the terms of the offer-in-compromise); United States v.
Wilson, 182 F. Supp. 567, 570 (D.N.J. 1960) (taxpayer’s failure
to pay weekly installments caused IRS to terminate offer-in-
compromise).
b. Analysis
Loss of benefit to injured party. In petitioner’s late
filing of his 1998 return, in which he was due a refund, the
extent of the benefit that respondent was deprived of was not
significant. Inherent in the requirement that taxpayers comply
with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for 5 years is
the IRS expectation that the taxpayer will pay the taxes owed on
time. See Roberts v. United States, 225 F. Supp. 2d at 1148. In
this case, however, petitioner was due a refund.
As stated supra, petitioner’s return was not timely filed.
Not every delay, however, constitutes a material breach. There
must also be a causal connection between the delay and the
damages suffered by respondent, in order for a material breach to
be found on the basis of the delay. 23 Williston on Contracts,
sec. 63:18 (4th ed. 2002). Respondent suffered no monetary
damage from petitioner’s late filing of the 1998 return. Under
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011