- 8 -
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988); Brown v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 215, 219 (1982).
Petitioners argue that petitioners’ failure timely to file
tax returns, to pay estimated taxes, and to pay the various
additions to tax and penalties assessed against them during the
5-year compliance period did not constitute a material breach of
the OIC and did not justify respondent’s revocation of the OIC
and therefore that respondent’s Appeals Office abused its
discretion in sustaining respondent’s notice of intent to levy.
We disagree. The numerous instances of petitioners’ failure
to keep their tax obligations current during the 5-year
compliance period constitute, under any standard, a significant
and material breach of the requirements of the OIC.
We need not address different standards that, in other
cases, might be considered and that might be applicable. See Ng
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-8.
Respondent mailed to petitioners a number of notices
alerting petitioners to the potential for default on the OIC and
giving petitioners opportunity to bring current their tax and
other payments due.
Although petitioners moved to a new address, petitioners
failed to apprise respondent of their new address, and respondent
cannot now be faulted for mailing the notices to the address
shown on petitioners’ tax returns. Petitioners, not respondent,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008