- 26 -
affirming our decisions to that effect. See Mortensen v.
Commissioner, 440 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo.
2004-279; Van Scoten v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir.
2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-275.
Ms. Cochran testified that she considered all of
petitioner’s assertions, including the numerous letters and
exhibits. Nevertheless, Ms. Cochran determined that petitioner
did not qualify for an offer-in-compromise.
The mere fact that petitioner’s “equitable facts” did not
persuade respondent to accept petitioner’s offer-in-compromise
does not mean that those assertions were not considered. The
notice of determination and Ms. Cochran’s testimony demonstrate
respondent’s clear understanding and careful consideration of the
facts and circumstances of petitioner’s case. The Court finds
that respondent’s determination that the “equitable facts” did
not justify acceptance of petitioner’s offer-in-compromise was
not arbitrary or capricious and thus was not an abuse of
discretion.
The Court finds that compromising petitioner’s case on
grounds of public policy or equity would not enhance voluntary
compliance by other taxpayers. A compromise on that basis would
place the Government in the unenviable role of an insurer against
poor business decisions by taxpayers, reducing the incentive for
taxpayers to investigate thoroughly the consequences of
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