- 14 -
in a disproportionate forfeiture or penalty to petitioner.
Moreover, for the reasons discussed supra, we find that the
condition that petitioner timely pay his 2002 taxes was a
material part of the OIC.
B. Scope of Review
Consideration of petitioner’s testimony or the Installment
Agreement Request would not alter any of the conclusions above.
At the time petitioner filed his Installment Agreement Request,
the Commissioner’s internal procedures provided that the
Commissioner could grant installment agreement requests from a
taxpayer in petitioner’s situation without declaring the taxpayer
in default. Internal Revenue Manual sec. 5.19.7.3.17.3
(effective October 1, 2001). While it may have been within
respondent’s discretion to overlook petitioner’s noncompliance
with the OIC and grant petitioner’s Installment Agreement
Request, we have long held that the Commissioner’s internal
procedures do not have the effect of law and that noncompliance
with those procedures does not render an action of the
Commissioner invalid. Vallone v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 794, 807-
808 (1987).
Petitioner also argues that because he was never notified
that his Installment Agreement Request was denied, we should
treat the request as having been granted. We disagree. We note
that petitioner failed to comply with the terms of his proposed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011