- 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 to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011