Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (447380)	1/13/2009 9:42:06 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576600

Except for cases they want to publicize as an example, they'll settle EVERY TIME, most often for far less than the taxes and penalties owed. When you say "settle" I'm assuming you mean the "Offer in Compromise". By statute, the OIC provision can be utilized ONLY when there is either (a) doubt as to liability, or (b) doubt as to the government's ability to collect. No compromise can be made BY LAW unless these criteria are met. But you're actually missing the point; the statute barred the assessment and collection ANYWAY UNLESS the tax returns were filed late (a federal crime) OR an extension of the statute had been entered into. If the statute was extended at the time of the original audit, the liability would have been previously established and one has to wonder why it had not already been paid. OTOH, if no waiver had been signed, the IRS was barred by the statute from assessing the liability on the earlier taxes, so any payment on those years would be an overpayment and would by law be refunded. So, you're in lala land talking about "settlements" (which you apparently are confusing with offers in compromise) when neither really applies to the situation. There are just a lot of unanswered questions that need to be explained. I can tell you that as a CPA when a client comes to you with back returns or assessments to be dealt with, if you do not deal with them ALL you are setting your client up for legal problems, potentially big ones, as the courts have held that it is fraudulent when a taxpayer tries to "spread out" correction of previous errors or misstatements in an effort to cause them to go unnoticed. So, if someone has a five year problem, you deal with all five years at once, not trying to quietly slide them in under the door with nobody noticing. Shit you don't know a damned thing about. But these are the facts.