- 60 -
HALPERN and HOLMES, JJ., dissenting:1 Petitioner admittedly
owed almost $1 million in back taxes and additions to tax.
Respondent agreed to forgo collection of almost 90 percent of
that amount in exchange for petitioner’s promise to pay the
balance of $100,000 in 60 days and pay additional amounts if his
future income exceeded certain levels.2 Respondent expressly
conditioned his forbearance on petitioner’s timely compliance
with tax filing and payment requirements over the next 5 years.
The majority essentially concludes that, notwithstanding
petitioner’s failures to (1) comply with the timely filing
condition and (2) respond to at least three written requests
demanding compliance, respondent may not declare petitioner in
default and proceed to collect the compromised amount in
accordance with the terms of the offer-in-compromise (OIC).
Along the way, the majority (1) eviscerates the Court’s holding
in Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002), regarding the
matters we may properly address in a collection due process case,
1 Seventeen judges voted in conference on Judge Vasquez’s
report in this case. Including Judge Vasquez, six judges agree
fully with the report, while eight concur in the result but take
exception to one or more of the report’s particulars. Since we
do not have a full exposition of the exceptions, we are unable to
say exactly how strong the conference agreement is on any of the
particulars of the report. We will assume, however, that a
majority could be marshaled for each of the particulars we
address here, and will refer to the “majority” in discussing
those particulars.
2 As part of the agreement, petitioner also waived the
period of limitations on collection.
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011