- 21 -
(2) that it appeared that the case should be returned to respon-
dent’s collection division, and (3) that he would be closing the
case. During the March 30, 2006 telephone call, petitioner’s
authorized representative told the settlement officer that he had
previously advised petitioner that petitioner’s June 28, 2005
offer-in-compromise would probably not be accepted, but that
petitioner had no other way to discharge his outstanding Federal
tax liabilities.
The settlement officer prepared a written recommendation
explaining the reasons why he had concluded that petitioner’s
June 28, 2005 offer-in-compromise was not adequate and would not
be accepted to resolve petitioner’s Federal tax liabilities,
including petitioner’s unpaid 2001 income tax liability and
7(...continued)
“Appeals Transmittal and Case Memo”.
As discussed supra note 6, in item 5 of petitioner’s June
28, 2005 offer-in-compromise, petitioner offered to compromise
his respective Federal tax liabilities for certain taxable years
that the settlement officer did not show as petitioner’s liabili-
ties in his “Rejection or Withdrawal Memorandum”. As also
discussed supra note 6, in his “Rejection or Withdrawal Memoran-
dum”, the settlement officer showed as petitioner’s liabilities
his respective Federal tax liabilities for certain taxable years
that petitioner did not offer to compromise in item 5 of peti-
tioner’s June 28, 2005 offer-in-compromise. We presume that, in
filing petitioner’s June 28, 2005 offer-in-compromise, petitioner
was unaware of those other Federal tax liabilities and that the
settlement officer concluded that they should have been included
in petitioner’s June 28, 2005 offer-in-compromise. See Internal
Revenue Manual (IRM) 5.8.2.3.1(2) (“A taxpayer may submit an
offer that does not include all outstanding liabilities. Prior
to accepting the offer, the Form 656 must be amended to include
all outstanding tax liabilities.”).
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007