- 58 -
In cases where an offer in compromise appears to
be a viable solution to a tax delinquency, the
Service employee assigned the case will discuss
the compromise alternative with the taxpayer and,
when necessary, assist in preparing the required
forms. The taxpayer will be responsible for ini-
tiating the first specific proposal for compro-
mise.
The success of the offer in compromise program
will be assured only if taxpayers make adequate
compromise proposals consistent with their ability
to pay and the Service makes prompt and reasonable
decisions. Taxpayers are expected to provide
reasonable documentation to verify their ability
to pay. The ultimate goal is a compromise which
is in the best interest of both the taxpayer and
the government. Acceptance of an adequate offer
will also result in creating for the taxpayer an
expectation of a fresh start toward compliance
with all future filing and payment requirements.
(2) Offers will not be accepted if it is believed that
the liability can be paid in full as a lump sum or
through installment payments extending through the
remaining statutory period for collection (CSED),
unless special circumstances exist. See IRM 5.14,
Installment Agreements.
(3) Absent special circumstances, a Doubt as to
Collectibility (DATC) offer amount must equal or
exceed a taxpayers [sic] reasonable collection
potential (RCP) in order to be considered for
acceptance.[34] The exception is that if special
34The only reason that petitioner gave in petitioner’s June
24, 2005 offer-in-compromise for the IRS to accept petitioner’s
offer was “Doubt as to Collectibility”. Petitioner did not give
as a reason “Doubt as to Collectibility with Special Circum-
stance” or “Effective Tax Administration”. Consistent with the
general rule of part 5.8.1.1.3(3) of the IRM (Nov. 15, 2004) for
an offer-in-compromise based on “Doubt as to Collectibility”,
petitioner offered in petitioner’s June 24, 2005 offer-in-compro-
mise an amount ($139,776) that was greater than the amount of
petitioner’s RCP ($139,707) that petitioner claims the first
offer specialist determined in September 2004. Assuming arguendo
(continued...)
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008