Yvonne Thomas - Page 8
- 8 -
As explained, in addition to her filing of a police report,
petitioner could have filed a Tax Court petition. Further, the
provisions of the ADA do not apply to Federal courts. United
States v. Wishart, 146 Fed. Appx. 171, 172-173 (9th Cir. 2005);
Sheridan v. Michels (In re Disciplinary Proceedings), 282 Bankr.
79, 92 n.15 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2002) (the ADA definition of a
public entity includes only State and local governments), vacated
on other grounds Sheridan v. Michels (In re Sheridan), 362 F.3d
96 (1st Cir. 2004).
Petitioner points out that under section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii)
one basis for considering an offer-in-compromise is doubt as to
the underlying tax liability, and therefore that in considering
whether an offer-in-compromise would be appropriate, petitioner’s
underlying tax liability should be allowed to be raised.
Petitioner, however, in her collection hearing with respondent’s
Appeals Office, did not raise an offer-in-compromise, nor has she
made one to respondent at any time since then, and accordingly we
herein will not consider any offer-in-compromise. Magana v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002).
In this regard, respondent asks us to expressly hold that
the collection alternative language of section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii)
does not implicitly or necessarily raise an issue as to the
amount of a taxpayer’s underlying tax liability and does not
override the section 6330(c)(2)(B) limitation on the raising of
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: November 10, 2007