Currently, the program is not available for any offers worked in the Centralized Offer in Compromise (COIC) sites. While Fast Track Mediation will be considered in all other cases, the decision to mediate a particular case remains discretionary for both the Service and the taxpayer.
IRM 8.1.2.2.2 - Jurisdiction of Appeals
IRM 8.1.2.2.2 - Jurisdiction of Appeals
IRM 8.1.2.2.4 -Some Exceptions to Appeals Authority Controlled issues are subject to the decision of Service officials assigned nationwide responsibility for specific issues. The Regional Commissioner, (Midstates) has nationwide jurisdiction for the issues related to pricing and shipment of foreign produced crude oil and by products. ISP- the Industry Specialization Programs that have been designated for litigation by the Associate Chief Counsel (Domestic), (International), or (Employee Benefits and Exempt Organizations). Appeals does not settle cases contrary to technical advice memoranda issued by the National Office where the technical advice memoranda are favorable to the taxpayer, where they concern an organizationâs exempt status or private foundation classification, or where they concern an employee planâs qualification. Appeals will not disturb terms agreed to by the National Office and the taxpayer in changes of methods of accounting.
This was done to preserve the independence of Appeals
Taxpayers assume that all issues are identified and on the table.
When a case has reached Appeals, it is late in the administrative process to raise new issues. Appeals consideration is not an extension of the examination. The issues and law should be developed. Further, a report has been reviewed by supervisors. After such consideration of the return, the manual states that the taxpayer has every right to expect that the differences have been identified.
Set realistic target dates for information, proposals and counter-proposals with the Appeals Officer.
Notes
Due to the uncertainty of the Courtâs interpretation of facts or law, Appeals may be willing to settle an issue on a 50/50; 60/40, etc. basis rather than a 100% concession or sustention. While a few cases are 100% cases, often there is a risk in going before a judge or jury.
Notes:
The inability to obtain required evidence is a major hazard of litigation. Cases based on IRP adjustments have been lost without original payor documents.
Notes:
The Governmentâs ability to go forward with the case will depend on its ability to effectively impeach and/or discredit the taxpayerâs documentary evidence and testimony and rebut the taxpayerâs legal arguments.
Notes:
Hazards exist in cases where there is an absence of legal precedent. If an A/O has a case with an issue that has arisen as a result of new law, there is no prior law to rely on. The A/O should evaluate the evidence for both sides. From a practical standpoint, the stronger the Governmentâs position in this case, the better. Usually the first several tried cases establish a trend. Therefore, we would not want to endanger our position on an issue by going forward with a weak case. If there is no legal precedent, the A/O needs to address these questions: Is the law clear or ambiguous? Does the legislative history support the Governmentâs position? What did Congress intend?
![REPRESENTATION BEFORE APPEALS ,[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/advancedrepresentation-090908135451-phpapp02/85/Advanced-Representation-1-320.jpg)
![WHAT WE WILL DISCUSS ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()