- 41 -
enter into OICs.” We need not in this case decide whether the
Secretary “must” negotiate an offer in compromise. See Olsen v.
United States, 414 F.3d at 157 (“section 7122 commits the
acceptance and negotiation of offers in compromise to the
Secretary’s discretion”). In this case, although Ms. Boudreau
rejected the offer in compromise, she told petitioner what would
be an acceptable offer in compromise and provided petitioner
almost 2 months to submit a new offer before she closed the case.
In that regard, there was no error in her actions. Cf. id. (with
respect to taxpayer’s argument that Appeals officer failed to
negotiate and make a counter-offer during course of section 6330
hearing: “Given * * * [the taxpayer’s] sluggish and inadequate
response, the appeals officer was certainly not required, nor was
she able, to make a meaningful counter-offer.”).
Finally, petitioner complains that the absence of
administrative review of the rejected offer in compromise as well
as the Secretary's failure to grant him administrative appeal
rights evidences bias in the section 6330 hearing procedures.12
Here, the record shows that Ms. Boudreau’s decision to reject the
offer was reviewed and approved by her supervisor. Moreover,
petitioner does have the right to appeal; viz, to this Court.
12 Sec. 301.7122-1(f), Proced. & Admin. Regs., requires
administrative review of a rejected offer in compromise and
accords the taxpayer a right of appeal.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011