- 10 -
A. Exceptional Circumstances
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: (1) The
longstanding nature of this case justifies acceptance of the
offer-in-compromise; (2) respondent’s reliance on an example in
the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 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 their offer-in-compromise.
Petitioner’s argument is essentially the same considered and
rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fargo
v. Commissioner, supra at 711-712. See also Keller v.
Commissioner, supra; Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150.
We reject petitioner’s argument for the same reasons stated by
the Court of Appeals. We add that petitioner’s counsel
participated in the appeal in Fargo as counsel for the amici. On
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011