Donald W. and Kathryn B. Conner - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
          (notice of determination).  The issues for decision are: (1)                
          Whether respondent abused his discretion in failing to abate                
          interest, and (2) whether respondent improperly refused to abate            
          assessments for additions to tax for failure to file under                  
          section 6651(a)(1) and failure to pay under section 6651(a)(2).             
                                     Background                                       
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so                
          found.  Petitioners resided in Tampa, Florida, at the time the              
          petition was filed.                                                         
               Petitioners filed a 1997 Federal income tax return on March            
          1, 2001.  The 1997 return reflected a tax due.  There was no                
          remittance with the return.  Respondent assessed the tax as well            
          as interest and additions to tax.                                           
               On May 1, 2002, respondent received an offer in compromise             
          (OIC) submitted by petitioners.  The OIC was returned to                    
          petitioners on May 23, 2002, because respondent’s records                   
          reflected that petitioners were not current in the filing of                
          quarterly employment tax returns.  By cover letter dated June 27,           
          2002, petitioners resubmitted the OIC.  Petitioners advised in              
          the letter that there was no payroll for their business, and                
          therefore no employment tax returns were due.                               
               The OIC was rejected in an Internal Revenue Service letter             
          dated April 21, 2003.  The letter advised petitioners that the              
          amount offered was less than the reasonable collection potential.           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011