- 10 - determination concerning employment status. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction under section 7436(a). Petitioners argue that we nevertheless should assert jurisdiction over Mr. Salazar’s collection dispute involving his employment tax liabilities because we did so in another case involving an offer-in-compromise for employment tax liabilities. In Collier v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-171, the taxpayer wanted to submit an offer-in-compromise for unpaid income tax liabilities for several years in issue. However, the Commissioner concluded that the taxpayer was precluded from pursuing an offer because the taxpayer was noncompliant in filing his employment tax returns and in paying his employment tax liabilities as required by the Internal Revenue Manual. Id. Consistent with other cases addressing similar facts, we held that the Commissioner’s decision not to process an offer-in- compromise because the taxpayer had not filed all required tax returns is not an abuse of discretion. Id.; see also Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-153; Londono v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-99. Petitioners’ reliance on Collier is misplaced because the facts are distinguishable. The taxpayer in Collier wanted to compromise only his unpaid income tax liabilities; he was not trying to compromise any employment tax liabilities. Collier v. Commissioner, supra. The Appeals officer in Collier refused toPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011