- 11 -
consider any compromise of the taxpayer’s income tax liabilities
because the taxpayer had not filed all of his returns as required
by the Internal Revenue Manual.8 We upheld the Appeals officer’s
determination. Id. In this case, petitioners’ offer-in-
compromise included all of petitioners’ unpaid Federal tax
liabilities, including Mr. Salazar’s employment tax liabilities,
and there is no suggestion in the record that petitioners had
failed to file required returns when the Appeals officer
considered the offer and rejected it on its merits.
Although petitioners are unable to cite a statute that
confers jurisdiction on this Court over Mr. Salazar’s employment
tax liabilities, they nevertheless argue that we should hear
their case as a matter of convenience and equity because,
otherwise, they must litigate their case in two different forums.
Although petitioners raise a legitimate concern,9 we do not
8In fact, the taxpayer in Collier v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-171, did not actually submit an offer-in-compromise.
9Ironically, if petitioners had submitted an offer-in-
compromise covering only their income tax liabilities, the offer
very likely would have been summarily rejected under the
Service’s existing procedures because an offer-in-compromise must
include all unpaid Federal tax liabilities for it to be
processed. See Rev. Proc. 2003-71, 2003-2 C.B. 517; 1
Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec. 5.8.1.7, at
16,256 (Sept. 1, 2005). Ideally, a taxpayer’s exercise of his
rights under sec. 6330 should not subject him to multiple
judicial proceedings in order to obtain a complete review of the
Service’s decision to reject the taxpayer’s offer-in-compromise.
However, this is what must happen under current law in cases like
the one before us.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011