Roger D. and Mary M. Catlow - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          offer to compromise their 1981 through 1998 Federal income tax              
          liability due to doubt as to collectibility with special                    
          circumstances and to promote effective tax administration.                  
          Petitioners contended that Appeals should accept their offer as a           
          matter of equity and public policy.  Petitioners stated that it             
          had taken a long time to resolve the Hoyt partnership cases and             
          noted that Hoyt had been convicted on the criminal charges.  The            
          second issue concerned an interest abatement case under section             
          6404(e) that petitioners mistakenly stated they had pending with            
          respondent.5  Petitioners stated that the interest abatement case           
          related to the same years at issue here and that the proposed               
          levy should be rejected because that case was pending.6                     
               On May 7, 2004, petitioners tendered to Cochran on Form 656,           
          Offer in Compromise, a written offer to pay $35,000 to compromise           
          their estimated approximately $575,000 liability.  Petitioners              
          supplemented their offer with a completed Form 433-A, Collection            
          Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed                    
          Individuals, four letters totaling approximately 80 pages, and              
          volumes of documents.  The Form 433-A reported that petitioners             


               5 While petitioners stated that they had the interest                  
          abatement case pending in this Court, they never petitioned this            
          Court with respect to the interest abatement issue.                         
               6 Petitioner Mary Catlow also requested relief under sec.              
          6015(b) and (f).  In that Mary Catlow later agreed that she was             
          not entitled to her requested relief, petitioners do not advance            
          that claim in this proceeding.                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011