- 22 -
a finding that we decline to make, we would not find that Ms.
Cochran’s rejection of petitioners’ offer-in-compromise was an
abuse of discretion. As discussed below (in our discussion of
petitioners’ “equitable facts” argument), we conclude that
acceptance of petitioners’ offer-in-compromise would undermine
voluntary compliance with tax laws by taxpayers in general.
B. Public Policy and Equity Considerations
Petitioners assert 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 their assertion, petitioners argue: (1) The
longstanding nature of this case justifies acceptance of the
offer-in-compromise; (2) respondent’s reliance on an example in
the IRM was improper; and (3) respondent failed to consider
petitioners’ other “equitable facts”.
1. Longstanding Case
Petitioners assert that the legislative history requires
respondent to resolve “longstanding” cases by forgiving penalties
and interest which would otherwise apply. Petitioners argue
that, because this is a longstanding case, respondent abused his
discretion by failing to accept their offer-in-compromise.
Petitioners’ argument is essentially the same considered and
rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fargo
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011