- 10 - discretion by declaring petitioner in default on his OIC because petitioner’s late payment of his 2002 taxes was a material breach. Finally, relying on the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Robinette, respondent argues that we may not consider evidence beyond the administrative record when reviewing a determination under section 6320 and/or 6330 for an abuse of discretion. IV. Analysis A. Applicable Contract Law 1. Material Breach Analysis Under the “material breach” analysis applied by the Tax Court in Robinette, “‘If the plaintiff’s breach is material and sufficiently serious, the defendant’s obligation to perform may be discharged. * * * Not so, however, if the plaintiff’s breach is comparatively minor.’” Robinette v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 108 (quoting TXO Prod. Corp. v. Page Farms, Inc., 698 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Ark. 1985)). The Court went on to point out: “In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant: (a) the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of the benefit which he reasonably expected; (b) the extent to which the injured party can be adequately compensated for the part of that benefit of which he will be deprived; (c) the extent to which the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will suffer forfeiture; (d) the likelihood that the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will cure hisPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011