C.F.R.
»
Title 28
» CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › Subpart Y—Authority To Compromise and Close Civil Claims and Responsibility for Judgments, Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
(a) In all cases in which the acceptance of a proposed offer in compromise would exceed the authority delegated by § 0.160, the Assistant Attorney General concerned shall, when he is of the opinion that the proposed offer should be accepted, transmit his recommendation to that effect to the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General, as appropriate.
(b) The Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General, as appropriate, is authorized to exercise the settlement authority of the Attorney General as to all claims asserted by or against the United States.
[Order No. 1958-95, 60 FR 15675, Mar. 27, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Krieger, 773 F. Supp. 580 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
“Cocoziello, Lenchner and Simon have submitted affidavits with conflicting accounts of Lenchner's and Simon’s representations during the April 16, 1987 settlement conference concerning their authority to accept a settlement proposal. Regardless of what representations were…”
White v. United States Dept. of Interior, 639 F. Supp. 82 (M.D. Pa. 1986).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 0.161 . The Assistant Attorney General is authorized, with limited exceptions, to settle matters for amounts not exceeding $750,000.”
Reed v. United States, 717 F. Supp. 1511 (S.D. Fla. 1988).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 0.161 (7-1-86 Ed.), which provides in pertinent part: “(b) The Deputy Attorney General is authorized to exercise the settlement authority of the Attorney General as to all claims on behalf of, and all claims against, the United States.”
Shekinah Gold Mines, Inc. v. United States (In Re Knopf), 190 B.R. 647 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1995).
· cites it 2× “4 28 C.F.R. § 0.161 (b). The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division can accept offers in compromise of claims on behalf of the United States in cases in which the difference between the gross amount of the original claim and the proposed settlement does not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.