- 45 -
of discretion. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
In petitioner’s response, petitioner advances three princi-
pal arguments in support of his position that respondent abused
respondent’s discretion in making the determinations in the
notice of determination. We turn to petitioner’s first principal
argument. In petitioner’s response, petitioner argues in perti-
nent part:
On September 6, 2004, an IRS Offer Specialist
[first offer specialist] determined that the Peti-
tioner’s Reasonable Collection Potential (“RCP”) was
only $139,707,[26] and the Petitioner promptly submitted
an offer to compromise for this amount.
Thereafter, in violation of applicable provisions
of the Code, Regulations, and its own Manual, the
26In the first offer specialist’s September 6, 2004 letter,
the first offer specialist indicated that he had adjusted peti-
tioner’s offer figure to $139,766 to reflect, inter alia, as-
sessed Federal excise tax for the tax periods ended Dec. 31,
1991, and Dec. 31, 1992. See Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) pt.
5.8.1.7(1); 5.8.2.3.1(2) (May 15, 2004). Petitioner’s September
29, 2004 offer-in-compromise, which was investigated by the first
offer specialist, did not include such excise tax in the liabili-
ties with respect to which petitioner submitted that offer and
offered $139,707, and not $139,766, to compromise the liabilities
that that offer was submitted to compromise. After the settle-
ment officer indicated during the June 7, 2005 telephonic discus-
sion that petitioner was required to submit a new offer-in-
compromise, petitioner submitted petitioner’s June 24, 2005
offer-in-compromise. Petitioner’s June 24, 2005 offer-in-compro-
mise offered $139,776 to compromise the liabilities that that
offer was submitted to compromise and included Federal excise tax
for the tax periods Dec. 31, 1991, and Dec. 31, 1992, in the
liabilities with respect to which petitioner submitted that
offer. With the exception of those differences, the September
29, 2004 offer-in-compromise and the June 24, 2005 offer-in-
compromise are identical.
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008