- 8 -
Hajiyani by having made sure that the IRS employee conducting
their CDP hearing had an OIC-DATL sitting in front of her. And,
though they didn’t discuss Oyer, the Baltics could likewise
distinguish that case from theirs by saying that they never
signed a stipulated decision, but simply chose not to start a Tax
Court case when they had a chance.
The Baltics also have one case, Siquieros v. United States,
94 AFTR 2d 2004-5518, 2005-1 USTC par. 50,244 (W.D. Tex. 2004),
affd. 124 Fed. Appx. 279 (5th Cir. 2005), that they argue
supports them. Or at least one sentence in that case that
supports them: “Her [i.e., Siquieros’s] offer based on doubt as
to liability is not synonymous with a challenge to the underlying
liability.” Id. at 2004-5524, 2005-1 USTC par. 50,244, at
87,570.
The quote is accurate, but Siquieros remains the thinnest of
supports for any general proposition that an OIC-DATL is not a
challenge to an “underlying tax liability.”6 It is, for one
thing, a responsible-party, trust-fund case.7 And Siquieros was
6 The court held that the IRS did not abuse its discretion
in refusing to accept Siquieros’s OIC. Siquieros, 94 AFTR 2d at
2004-5518, 2005-1 USTC at 87,570-87,571. It’s in the court’s
discussion of why the rejection wasn’t an abuse of discretion
that it noted that an OIC-DATL wasn’t synonymous with a challenge
to the underlying liability. Neither side had actually disputed
the point. Id.
7 Taxes that employers withhold from their employees’ wages
are known as “trust fund taxes” because they are deemed a special
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008