- 42 -
the instant case, during the conference between Mr. Burke and
Appeals Officer Kramer on November 4, 2005, Mr. Burke was asked
to submit additional documents needed for the evaluation of
petitioner’s offer-in-compromise by November 14, 2005.
Petitioner neither disputes that such a request was made nor
contends that such documents were in fact submitted in response
to the request.
Based on the administrative record in the instant case, we
are unable to conclude that the global settlement negotiations
affected the document request as alleged by petitioner. More
than 4 months elapsed from the date of the document request until
the issuance of the supplemental notice of determination, and
Appeals Officer Kramer was not required to make further requests.
We conclude that the record demonstrates that Appeals Officer
Kramer’s rejection of the offer-in-compromise was not an abuse of
discretion.27
26(...continued)
provides that the IRS may return the offer to the taxpayer.
27Petitioner alleges that he received from respondent a
letter dated Jan. 19, 2006, which stated: “If your offer in
compromise requires further actions, the Appeals employee will
set a deadline for completion. These actions can include adding
periods of liability or providing more financial information. If
the deadline is not met, your offer in compromise will be
returned.” Because respondent had already requested further
financial information as of the date of the alleged letter, such
language appears to be surplusage. Nonetheless, petitioner had
been provided ample opportunity to submit the requested documents
prior to Jan. 19, 2006, and petitioner could have but apparently
(continued...)
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011