- 23 -
could explain why he had failed to pay the 1992-2001 liability as
it came due. That explanation, claimed Mr. Burke, would convince
the Court that it would not have been contrary to public policy
for Ms. Boudreau to have accepted the offer in compromise. On
brief, petitioner argues that he qualifies for an offer in
compromise based on “equity”; i.e., “requiring the Respondent to
act fairly in compromising outstanding taxes in those instances
where a rigid interpretation of the Respondent’s rules * * *
precludes the resolution of an issue.” Considerations of
hardship, public policy, and equity figure in compromises
grounded on both doubt as to collectibility and effective tax
administration. See supra section III. of this report. We
accept that, at the section 6330 hearing, petitioner attempted to
convince Ms. Boudreau that special circumstances justified her
agreeing to an offer in compromise based on hardship, public
policy, or equity considerations. Therefore, as was the case in
Robinette v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner’s trial testimony
relates to an issue he raised at the section 6330 hearing.
Nevertheless, petitioner’s testimony regarding special
circumstances is not relevant to the question of whether Ms.
Boudreau abused her discretion in rejecting the offer in
compromise to the extent the offer was grounded on effective tax
administration. If for no other reason, that is because Ms.
Boudreau’s rejection of petitioner’s offer to the extent that the
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011