- 11 -
taxpayers differently.” Bunce v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 500,
509 (1993), affd. without published opinion 26 F.3d 138 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); see also Fresoli v. Commissioner, supra. In
implementing the balance, this Court requires the taxpayer to
show that: (1) Other similarly situated taxpayers received more
favorable settlements, and (2) the IRS’ discriminatory selection
of it was based on a suspect classification or any irrational or
arbitrary classification. Penn-Field Indus., Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 723; Fresoli v. Commissioner, supra.
Disparate treatment of investors in the same venture is
permissible if there is a rational basis for such treatment.
Avers v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner has shown that he and Mrs. Beagles invested in
similar partnerships, but not that the facts regarding abatement
were in all respects similar. In addition, petitioner has not
shown that he was denied the same period of interest abatement
that Mrs. Beagles received because of discrimination based on an
impermissible classification. Therefore, we conclude that
petitioner is not entitled to interest abatement on the same
terms that Mrs. Beagles was granted interest abatement.
III. Validity of the Assessment
Petitioner argues in his answering brief that respondent was
barred by the period of limitations from assessing any tax
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011