- 15 -
Because the underlying tax liability is not at issue, our
review under section 6330 is for abuse of discretion. See Sego
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,
114. T.C. 176, 182 (2000). This standard does not ask us to
decide whether in our own opinion petitioners’ offer-in-
compromise should have been accepted, but whether respondent’s
rejection of the offer-in-compromise was arbitrary, capricious,
or without sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner,
112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999); Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-
166; Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163.
A. Doubt as to Collectibility With Special Circumstances and
Effective Tax Administration
Mr. Owens did not determine whether petitioners were
entitled to an offer-in-compromise based on doubt as to
collectibility with special circumstances or effective tax
administration because he concluded that petitioners had
abandoned those arguments in their February 28, 2005, letter.
Petitioners assert that they only agreed to abandon those
positions contingent upon Mr. Owens’s acceptance of their
increased offer amount. Because he did not accept the increased
offer amount, petitioners argue that Mr. Owens abused his
discretion by failing to consider their special circumstances and
effective tax administration arguments. Petitioners’ argument is
not supported by the record.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011