






























Offer In Compromise Forms OIC Frequently Asked Questions Overview Offer Receipts Processability Appeals Manual Investigation Financial Analysis Collateral Agreements Return & Reject Processing Acceptance Processing Actions on Accepted Offers Special Case Processing Effective Tax Administration Independent Admin. Review OIC Received in Exam Doubt as to Liability Offers Effective Tax Admin. Offers Combination Offers Review, Closing & Reporting Case Processing & Controls Special Case Processing Financial Analysis Handbook OIC Cases - bankruptcy OIC Cases - Miscellaneous OIC Cases - abuse of discretion OIC Cases - Economic Hardship Technical Advice RS Policy Statement P-5-100 OIC Payments Plans OIC in Examination Financial Analysis Handbook Offer in Compromise Regulations Legislative History Contractual Terms Necessary Expenses IRS Criticized 7122 statute Bulletin 2003-36 Final Regulations T.D. 9086 T.D. 8829 Statute of Limitations Levy Prohibited Authority in OIC Revenue Procedure 60-22 Revenue Procedure 57-16 Revenue Procedure 2003-71 Revenue Procedure 80-6 Revenue Ruling 72-436 OIC cases 6224(c)(2) Enforceability on Children Delegation of Authority U.S. Attorney Jurisdiction Equitable Estopple Acceptance p1 Acceptance p2 Breach of Agreement Writing Required Bankruptcy p1 Bankruptcy p2 Department of Justice Oral Statements Overpayment Partnerships Net Operating Loss IR-2003-124 IR-2004-17 IR-2004-130 Claim for Refund Penalties Minor Child Contract Law Principles Tithing Alternative Minimum Tax Receiver Summons Release of Other Parties Satisfaction & Accord Tax Court Attorney General Interest Fact Finding p1 Fact Finding p2 Fact Finding p3 Fact Finding p4 Fact Finding p5 Fact Finding p6 OIC Policy Statements Abuse of Discretion Cases
|
Effective Tax
Administration Offers

5.8.22
Effective Tax Administration Offers
5.8.22.1 (01-01-2000)
Overview
- This section provides
guidance for examiners in considering effective tax
administration OIC requests.
- Offer in Compromise, Form
656, and Form 656–A, Additional Basis for
Compromise, should be completed by taxpayers
requesting consideration of an offer to compromise
based on effective tax administration.
5.8.22.2 (01-01-2000)
Considering the Effective Tax Administration
Issue
- If there are no grounds
for compromise under the doubt as to collectibility
or doubt as to liability provisions, a compromise
may be entered into to promote effective tax
administration when compromise of he liability will
not undermine compliance with the tax laws, and:
-
Collection of the
full liability will create
economic hardship
within the meaning of Treasury Regulation
section 301.6343–1; or,
-
Regardless of the
taxpayer's financial circumstances,
exceptional circumstances exist such that
collection of the full liability will be
detrimental to
voluntary compliance.
- Factors supporting (but
not conclusive of) a determination that compromise
would not undermine compliance with the tax laws
include:
-
Taxpayer does not
have a history of noncompliance with the
filing and payment requirements of the IRC;
-
Taxpayer has not
taken deliberate actions to avoid the
payment of taxes; and,
-
Taxpayer has not
encouraged others to refuse to comply with
the tax laws.
Note:
These factors
should be considered but no minimum
compliance requirement exists.
- Factors supporting a
determination of economic
hardship include:
-
Taxpayer has a
serious illness that renders the taxpayer
incapable of earning a living and it is
reasonably foreseeable that taxpayer's
financial resources will be exhausted
providing for care and support during the
course of the illness;
-
Although taxpayer
has certain assets, liquidation of those
assets to pay outstanding liabilities would
render the taxpayer unable to meet basic
living expenses;
-
Although taxpayer
has certain assets, the taxpayer is unable
to borrow against equity in those assets and
disposition by seizure/sale of the assets
would have sufficient adverse consequences
such that enforced collection is unlikely.
Note:
Economic
hardship offers will
not be considered by
Examination, but will be considered by
Collection.
- The following examples
illustrate cases in which collection of the full
liability will create economic
hardship:
-
Taxpayer is
disabled and lives on a fixed income that
will not, after allowance of adequate basic
living expenses, permit full payment of his
tax liability under an installment
agreement. Taxpayer also owns a modest house
that has been especially equipped to
accommodate his disability. Taxpayer's
equity in the house is sufficient to permit
payment of the liability he owes. However,
because of his disability and limited
earning potential, taxpayer is unable to
obtain a mortgage or otherwise borrow
against this equity. In addition, because
the taxpayer's home has been specially
equipped to accommodate his disability,
forced sale of the taxpayer's residence
would create severe adverse consequences for
the taxpayer, making such a sale unlikely.
Taxpayer's overall compliance history does
not weigh against compromise.
-
Taxpayer has
assets sufficient to satisfy the tax
liability. Taxpayer provides full time care
and assistance to her dependent child, who
has a serious long-term illness. It is
expected that the taxpayer will need to use
the equity in her assets to provide for
adequate basic living expenses and medical
care for her child. Taxpayer's overall
compliance history does not weigh against
compromise.
-
Taxpayer is
retired and his only income is from a
pension. The taxpayer's only asset is a
retirement account, and the funds in the
account are sufficient to satisfy the tax
liability. Liquidation of the retirement
account would leave the taxpayer without an
adequate means to provide for basic living
expenses. Taxpayer's overall compliance
history does not weigh against compromise.
- The following examples
illustrate cases in which, regardless of the
taxpayer's financial circumstances, compromise would
not be detrimental to
voluntary compliance with the tax laws:
-
In October of
1986, taxpayer developed a serious illness
that resulted in almost continuous
hospitalizations for a number of years. The
taxpayer's medical condition was such that
during this period the taxpayer was unable
to manage any of his financial affairs. The
taxpayer has not filed tax returns since
that time. The taxpayer's health has now
improved and he has promptly begun to attend
of his tax affairs. He discovers that the
IRS prepared a substitute for return for the
1986 tax year on the basis of information
returns it had received and had assessed a
tax deficiency. When the taxpayer discovered
the liability, with penalties and interest,
the tax bill is more than three times the
original tax liability. Taxpayer's overall
compliance history does not weigh against
compromise.
-
Taxpayer is a
salaried sales manager at a department store
who has been able to place $2,000 in a
tax-deductible IRA account for each of the
last two years. Taxpayer learns that he can
earn a higher rate of interest on his IRA
savings by moving those savings from a money
management account to a certificate of
deposit at a different financial
institution. Prior to transferring his
savings, taxpayer submits an e-mail inquiry
to the IRS at its Web Page, requesting
information about the steps he must take to
preserve the tax benefits he has enjoyed and
to avoid penalties. The IRS responds in an
answering e-mail that the taxpayer may
withdraw his IRA savings from his
neighborhood bank, but he must redeposit
those savings in new IRA account within 90
days. Taxpayer withdraws the funds and
redeposits them in a new IRA account 63 days
later. Upon audit, taxpayer learns that he
has been misinformed about the required
rollover period and that he is liable for
additional taxes, penalties and additions to
tax for not having redeposited the amount
within 60 days. Had it not been for the
erroneous advice that is reflected in the
taxpayer's retained copy of the IRS e-mail
response to his inquiry, taxpayer would have
redeposited the amount within the required
60-day period. Taxpayer's overall compliance
history does not weigh against compromise.
5.8.22.3 (02-01-2004)
Jurisdiction—Effective Tax Administration
- Compliance Collection has
jurisdiction over offers based on Effective Tax
Administration. Collection will retain offers based
on economic hardship, and
Detriment to Voluntary Compliance (DVC) offers
(where tax law fairness is at issue) will generally
be forwarded to Compliance Examination for
consideration.
(
Note
These cases may also fall under the
jurisdiction of Appeals if the taxpayer
raises the issue during a Collection Due
Process (CDP) or equivalent proceeding. See
Sections 5.8.26.4 and 5.8.26.4.1 of this
handbook for additional information.)
- Because effective tax
administration offers require a determination that
neither doubt as to liability or doubt as to
collectibility apply, Collection may forward such
offers to Examination for a determination of whether
there is any doubt as to liability. Generally, if
the taxpayer did not raise the doubt as to liability
issue, this determination may readily be made by the
Examination OIC Coordinator.
- In instances where
Examination consideration is warranted (paragraph 1
or 2 above), Collection will forward a
copy of the
Offer in Compromise (and/or a written referral) to
Examination, and retain the original. Examination
will subsequently provide a written disposal
recommendation to Collection.
- Examination action/offer
consideration should be initiated within 30 days and
monthly contact should be maintained with Collection
to inform them of the status and projected closure
date. A 60 day objective is established for reaching
a determination by Examination and returning the
file to Collection.
5.8.22.4 (02-01-2004)
Examination Considerations
- If the taxpayer requested
consideration of the Effective Tax Administration
provisions on Form 656–A and the case has been
forwarded from Collection for consideration, the
examiner is required to fully document any and all
relevant tax law considerations and provide a
recommendation as to whether the case is appropriate
for compromise based on the specific facts and
issues raised.
- Examiners should be
careful not to confuse DVC with economic hardship
offers. Economic hardship offers will always be
considered by the Collection.
- The examiner should
consider equity already established in the tax law
in assessing/analyzing the taxpayer's DVC offer. For
example, if the taxpayer is requesting compromise of
interest accruals, the examiner should be cognizant
of the current tax laws concerning interest
abatement (managerial, ministerial act), and why
current parameters were so established.
- During the course of
examination of a doubt as to liability issue, if the
taxpayer did not request consideration under the
effective tax administration standard but the
examiner assigned the OIC case identifiers the
provisions may apply, the examiner should suggest to
the taxpayer that he/she complete Forms 656–A and
433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage
Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, or 433-B,
Collection Information Statement for Businesses.
Note:
Form 433, Statement of
Financial Condition and Other Information, was
obsoleted by Collection in April, 1992. Forms
433-A & 433-B are adequate for use in its place.
- If the taxpayer completes
Form 656–A, the entire offer package should be
forwarded to Collection for consideration of the
collectibility and effective tax administration
issues.
- Where the examiner
believes that there is a DVC issue that warrants
consideration, the examiner should clearly address
the issues and why it is believed that compromise
may be warranted before forwarding the case to
Collection.
5.8.22.5 (01-01-2000)
Determination of Liability
- See procedures as outlined
under "doubt as to liability " provisions above.
5.8.22.6 (02-01-2004)
Offer Accepted
- See procedures as outlined
under "doubt as to liability " provisions above.
- Approval authority for
accepted effective tax administration offers may not
be delegated below Area Director level. Form 7249,
Offer Acceptance Report, will be annotated
"effective tax administration" as the reason for
acceptance.
- The acceptance
recommendation and correspondence is routed through
the Field Territory Manager, and submitted to
Collection.
- Collection is responsible
for finalizing offer acceptance, processing, and
issuing appropriate correspondence.
5.8.22.7 (01-01-2000)
Offer Withdrawn
- See procedures as outlined
under "doubt as to liability " provisions above.
- The Examination OIC
coordinator will forward the OIC file to Collection
for final processing.
5.8.22.8 (01-01-2000)
Offer Rejected
- See procedures as outlined
under "doubt as to liability " provisions above.
- Approval authority for
rejected effective tax administration offers is
delegated to Field Territory Manager.
- After Independent
Administrative Review is completed within
Examination (on the Examination issues), the
rejection recommendation and correspondence is
routed through the Field Territory Manager, and
submitted to Collection.
- Collection is responsible
for finalizing offer rejection, processing, and
issuing appropriate correspondence.
|