Peter P. Baltic and Karen R. Baltic - Page 7
- 7 -
a collection alternative that a taxpayer may raise at the
hearing. We have, however, already come very close to holding
that OIC-DATLs are a prohibited challenge to the underlying tax
liability. In Hajiyani v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-198, we
wrote in a footnote that an OIC-DATL “would address the merits of
the underlying liability. Since petitioner is precluded from
questioning the underlying liabilities, his offer would not
provide him any relief....” But the Baltics are right in noting
that Hajiyani--in the text--held that the Commissioner was
justified in not considering an OIC-DATL because the taxpayers
hadn’t even submitted one before the notice of determination came
out. The same is true of the taxpayers in Jones v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2007-142, and in Kindred v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d
688, 696 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirming an unpublished order granting
the Commissioner summary judgment).
We’ve also held that the Commissioner didn’t abuse his
discretion in rejecting an OIC-DATL where the underlying tax
liability was previously stipulated in a Tax Court decision,
because a stipulated tax liability can’t validly be considered a
“doubtful liability” under the applicable regulation. Sec.
301.7122-1(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; Oyer v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-178, affd. 97 Fed. Appx. 68 (8th Cir. 2004).
We recognize that the Baltics’ case is a bit different.
They plausibly distinguished their situation from cases like
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: March 27, 2008