Daniel O. Abelein - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          the taxpayers in Fargo v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d at 714, for whom           
          the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that “no                   
          evidence was presented to suggest that Taxpayers were the subject           
          of fraud or deception”.  Such considerations, however, have not             
          kept this Court from finding investors in the Hoyt tax shelters             
          to be liable for penalties and interest, nor have they prevented            
          the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits              
          from affirming our decisions to that effect.  See Hansen v.                 
          Commissioner, 471 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo.               
          2004-269; Mortensen v. Commissioner, 440 F.3d 375 (6th Cir.                 
          2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-279; Van Scoten v. Commissioner, 439           
          F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-275.                      
               Ms. Cochran testified that she considered all of Ms.                   
          Merriam’s and petitioner’s assertions, including the numerous               
          letters and exhibits.  Nevertheless, Ms. Cochran determined that            
          petitioner did not qualify for an offer-in-compromise.                      
               The mere fact that petitioner’s “equitable facts” did not              
          persuade respondent to accept their offer-in-compromise does not            
          mean that those assertions were not considered.  The notice of              
          determination and Ms. Cochran’s testimony demonstrate                       
          respondent’s clear understanding and careful consideration of the           
          facts and circumstances of petitioner’s case.  We find that                 
          respondent’s determination that the “equitable facts” did not               
          justify acceptance of petitioner’s offer-in-compromise was not              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011