28 C.F.R. § 0.161
Acceptance of certain offers by the Deputy Attorney General or Associate Attorney General, as appropriate
(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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1986–1995 · leading case: United States v. Krieger, 773 F. Supp. 580 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
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. Penn. 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 by & Through 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). “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…”
In Re Folding Carton Antitrust Litig., 687 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “28 C.F.R. § 0.161 (1985). It is not clear to us that the foregoing authorizes a U.”
United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 164 (S.D. Fla. 1989). “28 C.F.R. § 0.161 . Here, neither the AAG, nor the DAG ever reviewed or approved any version of the proposed settlement.”
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.