- 9 -
The history of this OIC is set forth here as
follows:
I am advised by the taxpayer and his accountant
that a lengthy Collection Division investigation and
negotiation process has been conducted by * * * [the
first revenue officer]. In early 2002, * * * [the
first revenue officer] and the taxpayers’ accountant
reached agreement regarding the amount of an OIC that
would be satisfactory to the Service. * * * [the first
revenue officer] had reviewed the taxpayers’ Forms 433-
A and 433-B, and had prepared the Service’s analysis of
the “Amount That Could Be Paid” by each taxpayer. * * *
[the first revenue officer] asked for an OIC in the
amount of $19,200 from Mr. Lloyd’s PC, and for an OIC
in the amount of $6,576 from Mr. Lloyd personally. The
accountant was assured by * * * [the first revenue
officer] that these OIC’s would be accepted by the
Service. A copy of the “Amount That Could Be Paid”
analysis is also included for your reference.
The OIC’s were submitted on February 13, 2002 in
the exact amounts requested and the taxpayer received
no response to date from the Service in respect of
these OIC’s.
We have been advised by your Revenue Officer * * *
[second revenue officer] of the IRS Appeals Office in
Baltimore that the PC was considered to be “out of
compliance” during the first quarter of 2002, because a
payment by the taxpayer of a Form 941 payroll deposit
was timely but mistakenly mailed as an attachment to
the Form 941 return as opposed to being correctly
deposited with a bank. Therefore, these two OIC’s were
not rejected, but rather “returned” and thus held in
abeyance and eligible for resubmission once the taxpay-
ers were compliant for two consecutive calendar quar-
ters from the first quarter of 2002. Both taxpayers
have been fully compliant for the second and third
quarters of 2002, and these OIC’s should thus be eligi-
ble for action.
After familiarizing herself with the case, and
after consulting with the OIC Manager in the IRS Balti-
more Office, * * * [the second revenue officer] in-
structed us that, since the February 13 OIC’s had not
been “rejected” (only “returned”), the taxpayers may
now resubmit the OIC’s directly to your office.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008