- 21 -
offer-in-compromise; (2) respondent’s reliance on an example in
the Internal Revenue Manual was improper; 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 one considered
and rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
Fargo v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d at 711-712. See also Keller v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166; Barnes v. Commissioner, supra.
The Court rejects petitioner’s argument for the same reasons
stated by the Court of Appeals. The Court adds that petitioner’s
counsel participated in the appeal in Fargo as counsel for the
amici. On brief, petitioner suggests that the Court of Appeals
knowingly wrote its opinion in Fargo in such a way as to
distinguish that case from the cases of counsel’s similarly
situated clients (e.g., petitioner), and to otherwise allow those
clients’ liabilities for penalties and interest to be forgiven.
The Court does not read the opinion of the Court of Appeals in
Fargo to support that conclusion. See Keller v. Commissioner,
supra; Barnes v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011