- 30 -
petitioner’s legitimate concern that the collection action be no
more intrusive than necessary.
The record does not support petitioner’s contention.
Although petitioner completed an offer-in-compromise form, Mr.
Burke did not submit the form to Settlement Officer O’Shea for
consideration during their meeting on January 30, 2002, or at any
time thereafter. Petitioner concedes that the parties informally
suspended consideration of any offer-in-compromise pending a
determination of Barbara Drake’s request for section 6015 relief.
On September 4, 2002, subsequent to respondent’s denial of
section 6015 relief to Barbara Drake, petitioner submitted an
“amended” offer-in-compromise. In a letter dated September 4,
2002, Settlement Officer O’Shea informed Mr. Burke that no
original offer-in-compromise had been submitted for
consideration, and he returned the amended offer-in-compromise to
Mr. Burke. Petitioner concedes that the reason for returning the
amended offer-in-compromise was to avoid any administrative
confusion. On April 10, 2003, Appeals Officer Kaplan informed
Mr. Burke that no offer-in-compromise was presently before the
Appeals Office. A letter from Appeals Officer Kaplan to Mr.
Burke dated July 2, 2003, stated as follows:
I have enclosed several collection information
statements and the Offer in Compromise Questionnaire.
If the taxpayers’ intent is to submit an Offer in
Compromise as an alternative collection resolution to
their case, please submit this document at this time.
I have included the Offer in Compromise packet in this
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011