- 7 -
then the application would be improper, and petitioners’
assertion that payments should be applied to a liability for the
years in issue would require further consideration and analysis.
See Freije v. Commissioner, supra at 36-37. This is not the
situation in this case. Petitioners have not provided any
evidence that respondent applied payments or offsets in a manner
inconsistent with directions or that payments or offsets were
applied against improper assessments. Accordingly, we reject
petitioners’ arguments in this regard.
We now consider petitioners’ argument that respondent should
be bound by the response to their balance inquiry. As we
understand the facts, petitioners asked respondent for the amount
due, and respondent’s response was not entirely accurate; in fact
it did not include all the tax liabilities due at the time of the
response. Petitioners seek to interpret this response as an
agreement by respondent as to the amount which would satisfy
their tax liabilities for the years stated.
As pointed out by respondent, section 7121 provides a basis
for parties to enter into a closing agreement binding the
parties. In this case, the parties did not enter into a closing
agreement. The prior installment agreement (which was not made
part of the record) does not constitute a closing agreement. See
Person v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-211.
To the extent that petitioners claim that they have been
adversely affected by erroneous information provided by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011