- 10 -
OPINION
This case is one in a long list of cases brought in this
Court involving respondent’s proposal to levy on the assets of a
partner in a Hoyt partnership to collect Federal income taxes
attributable to the partner’s participation in the partnership.
Petitioners argue that Appeals was required to let them pay
$32,000 to compromise what they estimate is their approximately
$400,000 Federal income tax liability for 1981 through 1998.
Where an underlying tax liability is not at issue in a case
invoking our jurisdiction under section 6330(d), we review the
determination of Appeals for abuse of discretion. See Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). We reject the
determination of Appeals only if the determination was arbitrary,
capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Cox v.
Commissioner, 126 T.C. 237, 255 (2006); Murphy v. Commissioner,
125 T.C. 301, 308, 320 (2005).
Where, as here, we decide the propriety of Appeals’s
rejection of an offer-in-compromise, we review the reasoning
underlying that rejection to decide whether the rejection was
arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
We do not substitute our judgment for that of Appeals, and we do
not decide independently the amount that we believe would be an
acceptable offer-in-compromise. See Murphy v. Commissioner,
supra at 320; see also Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
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