- 28 -
offered (or the way in which the offer is calculated) need not be
considered.
Petitioner’s arguments regarding the compromise of penalties
and interest do not relate to whether there are grounds for a
compromise. Instead, these arguments go to whether the amount
petitioner offered to compromise his tax liability was
acceptable. As addressed above, respondent’s determination that
the facts and circumstances of petitioner’s case did not warrant
acceptance of his offer-in-compromise was not arbitrary or
capricious and was thus not an abuse of discretion. Because no
grounds for compromise exist, this Court need not address whether
respondent can or should compromise penalties and interest in an
ETA offer-in-compromise. See Keller v. Commissioner, supra.
2. Information Sufficient for the Court to Review
Respondent’s Determination
Petitioner argues that respondent failed to provide the
Court with sufficient information “so that this Court can conduct
a thorough, probing, and in-depth review of respondent’s
determinations.” Petitioner’s argument is without merit.
Generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving the
Commissioner’s determinations incorrect. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).16 The burden was on
16 While sec. 7491 shifts the burden of proof and/or the
burden of production to the Commissioner in certain
circumstances, this section is not applicable in this case
(continued...)
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