- 20 -
5. Encouraging Voluntary Compliance With the Tax Laws
Any decision by Ms. Cochran to accept petitioner’s offer-in-
compromise because of ETA based on economic hardship must be
viewed against the backdrop of section 301.7122-1(b)(3)(iii),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.14 See Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2006-150. This section requires Ms. Cochran to deny petitioner’s
offer if its acceptance would undermine voluntary compliance with
tax laws by taxpayers in general. Thus, even if this Court were
to assume arguendo that petitioner would suffer economic
hardship, a finding that it declines to make, this Court would
not find that Ms. Cochran’s rejection of petitioner’s offer was
an abuse of discretion. As discussed below (in our discussion of
petitioner’s “equitable facts” argument), acceptance of
petitioner’s offer would undermine voluntary compliance with tax
laws by taxpayers in general.
B. Public Policy and Equity Considerations
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
14 The prospect that acceptance of an offer will undermine
compliance with the tax laws militates against its acceptance.
See also Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011