- 10 -
from the bankruptcy estate. As part of his analysis in his
closing memorandum, Mr. Conte noted that if the offer-in-
compromise were accepted, any funds remaining after the
bankruptcy trustee discharged petitioners’ debts would go to
other creditors or to petitioners. Mr. Conte concluded: “Based
upon informal advice from Counsel and the taxpayer’s response, it
is Appeals’ decision to reject the offer-in-compromise of
$9,024.25 as insufficient due to the fact that a larger amount
appears to be collectible.”
On January 4, 2005, respondent’s Appeals Office issued a
Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under
Section 6320 and/or 6330 sustaining the proposed levy action with
respect to petitioners’ 1997, 1998, and 1999 income tax
liabilities. In a separate letter addressed only to Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Conte indicated that the offer-in-compromise had also been
rejected with respect to his outstanding employment tax
liabilities.
On February 3, 2005, petitioners filed a petition with this
Court seeking review of respondent’s determination under docket
No. 2203-05L. Petitioners allege that respondent’s rejection of
their offer to compromise both their outstanding income tax
liabilities and Mr. Salazar’s employment tax liabilities was an
abuse of discretion. Petitioners’ petition for docket No. 2203-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008