- 24 -
that acceptance of the offer would risk the receipt of that
$20,000. We find that Mr. Conte was not enunciating a bright-
line rule for all cases. Mr. Conte was simply applying
respondent’s guidelines on evaluating offers-in-compromise,
including the reasonable collection potential, to the specifics
of petitioners’ offer.
Finally, petitioners argue that respondent abused his
discretion by rejecting petitioners’ offer-in-compromise solely
on the basis of the amount offered. Section 7122(d)(3)(A)
provides: “an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue
Service shall not reject an offer-in-compromise from a low-income
taxpayer solely on the basis of the amount of the offer”. The
regulations expand on this by stating that “No offer to
compromise may be rejected solely on the basis of the amount of
the offer without evaluating that offer under the provisions of
this section and the Secretary's policies and procedures
regarding the compromise of cases.” Sec. 301.7122-1(f)(3),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
The administrative record makes clear that Mr. Conte did not
reject petitioners’ offer-in-compromise solely on the basis of
the amount offered, $9,024.25. Mr. Conte used respondent’s
policies and procedures––the guidelines of the IRM as well as
advice received from counsel––to evaluate the specifics of
petitioners’ offer in the light of what respondent could
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008