- 11 -
sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C.
19, 23 (1999); Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163.
A. Exceptional Circumstances
Petitioner asserts that “There are so many unique and
equitable facts in this case that this case is an exceptional
circumstance”, and respondent abused his discretion by not
accepting those facts as grounds for an offer-in-compromise. In
support of his assertion, petitioner argues that: (1) The
longstanding nature of this case justifies acceptance of the
offer-in-compromise; (2) respondent’s reliance on an example in
the Internal Revenue Manual was misplaced; and (3) respondent
failed to consider petitioner’s other “equitable facts”.
1. Longstanding Case
Petitioner asserts that the legislative history requires
respondent to resolve “longstanding” cases by forgiving penalties
and interest which would otherwise apply. Petitioner argues
that, because this is a longstanding case, respondent abused his
discretion by failing to accept his offer-in-compromise.
Petitioner’s argument is essentially the same argument
considered and rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Fargo v. Commissioner, supra at 711-712. See also
Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150. We reject
petitioner’s argument for the same reasons stated by the Court of
Appeals. We add that petitioner’s counsel participated in the
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