- 46 -
Service returned the offer in error (for an alleged
underpayment of a small estimated tax penalty which the
Petitioner disputed) and issued levies. The Petitioner
then filed a CDP hearing request.
Upon receipt of the CDP hearing request, the
Settlement Officer abused her discretion by requiring
the Petitioner to submit a new offer, instead of rein-
stating the existing offer as required by Regulation
§301.6330-1(e)(1). On September 6, 2005, exactly one
year after the first RCP determination * * * a second
IRS Offer Specialist looking at the same financial
information determined that the Petitioner’s RCP was
$979,527.
Although not altogether clear, it appears that petitioner is
arguing that the settlement officer abused the settlement offi-
cer’s discretion by (1) not accepting as petitioner’s reasonable
collection potential (RCP) the amount calculated by the first
offer specialist in connection with petitioner’s September 29,
2004 offer-in-compromise and (2)(a) instead requiring petitioner
to submit a new, updated offer-in-compromise (i.e., petitioner’s
June 24, 2005 offer-in-compromise) accompanied by a new, updated
Form 433-A (i.e., petitioner’s June 24, 2005 Form 433-A) and
(b) determining as petitioner’s RCP an amount different from the
amount of petitioner’s RCP that the first offer specialist
determined.
In support of the foregoing argument, petitioner relies on
section 301.6330-1(e)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., as in effect
with respect to requests for Appeals Office hearings made before
November 16, 2006. That regulation provided:
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008