Donald and Yvonne Clayton - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
               Cochran considered all of the evidence submitted to her by             
          petitioners and applied the guidelines for evaluating an                    
          offer-in-compromise to promote effective tax administration.                
          Cochran determined that petitioners’ offer was unacceptable                 
          because they were able to pay more than the $100,000 that they              
          offered to compromise their tax liability.  Cochran’s                       
          determination to reject petitioners’ offer-in-compromise was not            
          arbitrary, capricious, or without a sound basis in fact or law,             
          and it was not abusive or unfair to petitioners.  Cochran’s                 
          determination was based on a reasonable application of the                  
          guidelines, which we decline to second-guess.  See Speltz v.                
          Commissioner, 124 T.C. 165 (2005), affd. 454 F.3d 782 (8th Cir.             
          2006); Barnes v. Commissioner, supra.                                       
               Petitioners make seven arguments in advocating a contrary              
          result.  First, petitioners argue that Cochran’s rejection of               
          their offer-in-compromise conflicts with the congressional                  
          committee reports underlying the enactment of section 7122.                 
          According to petitioners, their case is a “longstanding” case,              
          and those reports require that respondent resolve such cases by             
          forgiving interest and penalties that otherwise apply.  We                  
          disagree with petitioners’ reading and application of the                   
          legislative history underlying section 7122.  Petitioners’                  
          argument on this point is essentially the same argument that was            
          considered and rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth               






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011