- 8 -
ment officer informed petitioners that respondent was charged
with enforcing the law as it was written, and not as it was set
forth in proposed legislation.
On or about October 20, 2005, the settlement officer who had
been assigned to handle petitioners’ taxable years 2000 and 2001
was transferred to a managerial position. As a result, another
settlement officer with the Appeals Office (second settlement
officer) was assigned to consider that matter.
The second settlement officer reviewed the administrative
file relating to petitioners’ taxable years 2000 and 2001 and
sent petitioners a letter dated October 26, 2005 (second settle-
ment officer’s October 26, 2005 letter). The second settlement
officer’s October 26, 2005 letter stated in pertinent part:
I have been reassigned your Collection Due Process
(CDP) request regarding the filing of the Notice of
Federal Tax Lien for the above referenced tax periods
[2000 and 2001] * * *.
I have thoroughly reviewed your file including all
previous correspondences and administrative history
records. I am well versed in the AMT/ISO issue as this
is a widely debated issue now before Congress. I am
also personally familiar with Mr. Timothy Carlson, his
Coalition for Tax Fairness (CTF), and their proposed
legislation before Congress (H.R. 3385) to enact retro-
active changes to the application of AMT for the thou-
sands of individuals in your current situation.
However, as you have been previously advised, the IRS
has taken the position that we will not consider or
accept an Offer in Compromise under the provisions of
Effective Tax Administration-Public Policy when the
basis for the Offer is that the imposition of the tax
law, specifically the AMT, is in and of itself unjust
and inequitable. Our position has recently been upheld
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011