- 73 -
2002-1202, 1208, 2002-1 USTC par. 50,224, at 83,429 (C.D. Ill.
2001); MRCA Info. Servs. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 2d 194,
198 (D. Conn. 2000) (quoting United States v. Carlo Bianchi &
Co., supra at 714). The majority makes no mention of those
cases. Are we to believe that Congress intended the appropriate
scope of review in section 6330 cases to hinge on the type of tax
involved? Certainly, the language of section 6330 suggests no
such distinction.
II. The Contract Issue
The contract issue as framed by the majority (i.e., whether
the OIC remained in effect despite petitioner’s failure to timely
file his 1998 return) is more nuanced than the majority opinion
leads one to believe. The majority oversimplifies what
respondent was bargaining for, disregards the significance of the
fact that respondent repeatedly offered petitioner the
opportunity to cure his default, and assumes, without analysis,
that the concepts of materiality and substantial performance are
dispositive of the contract issue.
A. Materiality of Timely Filing Requirement
The majority assumes that the only benefit the Commissioner
seeks when accepting an OIC is the actual receipt of moneys owed
under its terms: “Respondent suffered no monetary damage from
petitioner’s late filing of the 1998 return.” Majority op. p. 41
(emphasis added). But collecting money is not the Commissioner’s
Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011