- 4 -
The settlement officer who held the CDP hearing told the
Baltics that they couldn’t challenge the amount or existence of
their tax liability for 1999 because they had had a chance to
challenge the liability when they received a notice of deficiency
and hadn’t done so. She also explained to them that, even though
she herself couldn’t consider the OIC-DATL as part of the CDP
hearing, an Appeals officer within another part of the IRS would
consider it and a revenue officer in yet a third part of the IRS
would examine the Baltics’ amended 1999 return in what is called
an “audit reconsideration.” The settlement officer then ended
the CDP hearing, and sent the Baltics a notice in which she
determined that collection by levy would be postponed until the
IRS both decided whether to accept the OIC-DATL and finished its
“audit reconsideration,” but that the lien would be sustained.
3(...continued)
and then sent them a letter explaining that partial payment
doesn’t defeat a tax lien. His reason for doing so is
unclear--section 301.7122-1(h), Proced. & Admin. Regs., says the
Commissioner should treat such checks as deposits, not payments;
implying the Baltics should ultimately get the money refunded if
their offer is rejected. (Section 7122(c)(1) was recently
amended, Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005,
Pub. L. 109-222, sec. 509, 120 Stat. 362, to require partial
payment to be submitted with an OIC, but the amendment doesn't
affect the Baltics, because they submitted their OIC before the
amendment's effective date.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008