Robert and Grace Bergevin - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
               1.  The Equitable Provisions of RRA 1998 Concerning                    
          Offers in Compromise                                                        
               The Conference Report of RRA 1998 directs that “the IRS                
               [in formulating these rules] take into account factors                 
               such as equity, hardship, and public policy where a                    
               compromise of an individual taxpayer’s income tax                      
               liability would promote effective tax administration.”                 
               H. Conf. Rep. No. 599, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 289                       
               (1998).  The legislative history also specifies that                   
               the IRS should utilize this new authority “to resolve                  
               longstanding cases by forgoing penalties and interest                  
               which have accumulated as a result of delay in                         
               determining the taxpayer’s liability.”  Id.  The Hoyt                  
               partnership cases clearly qualify as “longstanding”                    
               cases and interest should be abated in an offer in                     
               compromise.  The Commissioner’s current position on                    
               these cases, to abate no interest because the IRS does                 
               not believe it contributed to the delay, is                            
               inconsistent with the broad legislative intent to go                   
               outside the narrow constraints of interest abatement                   
               under 26 U.S.C. sec. 6404(e) and simply abate interest                 
               in longstanding cases.                                                 
               Furthermore, it has been established by Jay Hoyt’s                     
               March 2001 conviction that he defrauded the partners                   
               and that the partners were his unwitting victims.  (The                
               I.R.S. also determined that the partners were                          
               “unwitting victims” in his appeals supporting statement                
               concerning the TEFRA cases).  Thus, application of RRA                 
               1998's equitable provisions should take into account                   
               the extraordinary circumstances of these victims.  The                 
               IRS’ refusal to consider the equities of these cases is                
               inconsistent with legislative intent.                                  
               Therefore, the collection alternative of an “effective                 
               tax administration” offer should be considered.                        
                          *    *    *    *    *    *    *                             
               3.  Opportunity to be Heard                                            
               Mr. and Mrs. Bergevin had no opportunity to be heard                   
               during the examination process.  Jay Hoyt, the TMP, was                
               under criminal investigation by the IRS during the                     
               examination process and was subject to impermissible                   
               conflicts of interests due to that investigation that                  
               rendered him incapable of performing his fiduciary                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008