Wayne Allen Mootz - Page 28




                                       - 28 -                                         
          determination to reject petitioner’s June 28, 2005 offer-in-                
          compromise.9  As discussed above, in that offer-in-compromise,              
          petitioner offered $10,000 to compromise Federal tax liabilities            
          totaling between $32,449 and $48,183.10.  See supra note 7.                 
               Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying             
          tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will               
          review the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue            
          for abuse of discretion.  See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604,           
          610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).             
               Section 7122(a) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury               
          (Secretary) to compromise, inter alia, any civil case arising               
          under the internal revenue laws.  Section 7122(c) authorizes the            
          Secretary to prescribe guidelines for the officers and the                  
          employees of the IRS to determine whether an offer-in-compromise            
          is adequate and should be accepted to resolve a dispute.  The               
          regulations promulgated under section 7122 set forth three                  
          grounds for the compromise of a liability:  (1) Doubt as to                 
          liability, (2) doubt as to collectibility, and (3) to promote               
          effective tax administration.  Sec. 301.7122-1(b), Proced. &                
          Admin. Regs.  The only ground that petitioner raised in peti-               
          tioner’s June 28, 2005 offer-in-compromise was doubt as to                  
          collectibility.                                                             

               9As discussed above, during the June 22, 2005 conference,              
          petitioner’s authorized representative acknowledged that peti-              
          tioner was unable to fund an installment agreement.                         






Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007