Gregory Drake - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
                    commissions would be charged against the proceeds.                
               •    Barbara Drake would be granted innocent spouse                    
                    relief for the outstanding balance of the Subject                 
                    Liabilities, after application of the Smith Barney                
                    proceeds.  Barbara Drake waives any right she may                 
                    have to file a refund claim for the Subject                       
                    Liabilities.                                                      
               •    The IRS would accept the Smith Barney proceeds as                 
                    an Offer in Compromise from Gregory Drake for                     
                    satisfaction of the Subject Liabilities.                          
               •    Gregory Drake agrees to a motion to dismiss the                   
                    above-referenced CDP case as moot, with no costs                  
                    or attorneys fees awarded to either party.                        
               •    Gregory Drake, Darren Drake, and Gregory Drake,                   
                    Jr., reserve whatever rights they may have to file                
                    amended income tax returns with respect to this                   
                    matter.                                                           
          The aforementioned terms are sometimes hereinafter generally                
          referred to as the settlement terms.  In a letter to Mr. Burke              
          dated December 21, 2005, Attorney Cardone stated that the Appeals           
          officer would be instructed that the parties were unable to reach           
          a settlement unless Barbara Drake and petitioner were to accept             
          all of the settlement terms as of December 28, 2005.                        
          Accordingly, in a letter dated December 30, 2005, Attorney                  
          Cardone informed Mr. Burke that the settlement terms had not been           
          accepted and that the offer had, therefore, lapsed.                         
               Despite Attorney Cardone’s letter stating that respondent’s            
          offer had lapsed, Mr. Burke and Attorney Cardone again discussed            
          the prospective global settlement in a telephone conference on              
          January 6, 2006.  During this conference, Mr. Burke informed                






Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011