Simon L. and Patricia M. Richard - Page 14

                                       - 13 -                                         
          was therefore improper, and the Appeals officer's disregard of              
          their claim that those payments had been misapplied was an abuse            
          of discretion.  In so doing, the Appeals officer failed to                  
          satisfy the mandate of section 6330(c)(1) that she verify that              
          the requirements of any applicable law or administrative                    
          procedure had been met.  The $3,337.24 liability for 1993 that              
          respondent seeks to collect herein must be offset by the $2,617             
          in payments petitioners made under the 1993 installment agreement           
          that respondent improperly applied to their 1991 and 1992                   
          liabilities.                                                                
               Petitioners also contend that respondent improperly applied            
          their 1995 and 1996 overpayments to 1991 because the 1991                   
          assessment to which they were applied (i.e., the 1991 quick                 
          assessment) was invalid, having been made after the period of               
          limitation on assessment for petitioners' 1991 taxable year had             
          expired.  As a consequence, petitioners contend, those                      
          overpayments should be available to satisfy the 1993 and 1997               
          liabilities sought to be collected herein.                                  
               Respondent counters that this Court lacks jurisdiction to              
          consider whether the 1991 quick assessment was valid, because               
          1991 was not a subject of the notice of determination; that is,             
          1991 is a nondetermination year in this case.10  We held to the             

               10 Respondent notes in this regard that we granted his                 
          motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction with respect to                  
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011