Estate of Carol Andrews, Deceased, Robert Andrews, Special Administrator, and Robert Andrews - Page 22

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011