- 76 -
OIC in accordance with its terms, that is the line of inquiry we
should pursue.9
D. United States v. Lane
Quite apart from any discussion of general contract law
principles, we also disagree with the majority’s treatment of the
most similar case we have found, United States v. Lane, 303 F.2d
1 (5th Cir. 1962). In Lane, the Court of Appeals rejected the
taxpayer’s argument that strict enforcement of his OIC would
result in a forfeiture. As had petitioner, the taxpayer had
entered into an OIC which required him to pay a specific amount,
pay additional amounts if his annual income exceeded a floor, and
make annual statements of his income “regardless of amount”. The
taxpayer paid the specific amount and then failed to make the
annual statements of his income. The taxpayer’s OIC provided,
like petitioner’s, that, in the event of default, the
Commissioner could revive and collect the unpaid balance of the
9 We are aware of authority indicating that, in the context
of an executory accord (which an offer-in-compromise resembles),
enforcement of the original obligation is justified only if the
obligee’s noncompliance with the accord is material. See Frank
Felix Associates, Ltd. v. Austin Drugs, Inc., 111 F.3d 284, 286-
289 (2d Cir. 1997) (reasoning at 287 that, under a rule requiring
strict compliance with the accord, the obligee “could obtain
payment of a contested debt and, due to a minor breach of the
accord, receive the windfall entitlement to reassert its pre-
settlement claims” (Emphasis added.)). We are not aware of any
authority addressing the interplay between that line of reasoning
and the doctrine of express conditions. Again, if we are going
to undertake a substantive analysis of contract law, those are
the types of issues we should be addressing.
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