- 42 -
Petitioners also argue that respondent has impermissibly
discriminated against them by taxing them on the Bond proceeds
while, in other cases, respondent has settled with the issuers.20
This argument is wide of the mark. It is the responsibility of
this Court to apply the law to the facts before it and to
determine the tax liability of petitioners before it. The
Commissioner's treatment of other taxpayers has generally been
considered irrelevant in making that determination. Jaggard v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 222, 226 (1981) (citing Teichgraeber v.
Commissioner, 64 T.C. 453, 456 (1975)). To establish illegal
discrimination by the Commissioner, petitioners must show more
than the fact that they have been treated less favorably than
other similarly situated taxpayers. Petitioners must also show
that such allegedly discriminatory treatment is based upon
impermissible considerations such as race, religion, or the
desire to prevent the exercise of constitutional rights. Penn-
Field Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 720, 723 (1980).
Petitioners have not shown, in the first instance, that
other similarly situated taxpayers received better treatment. In
addition, petitioners have not demonstrated that respondent has
used impermissible criteria in determining the deficiencies in
20Any "settlements" with bond issuers may well have included
the issuers' payment of an amount pursuant to sec. 148(f)(2).
The Housing Authority of Riverside County has made no such
payment.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011