- 23 -
v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d at 711-712. See also Keller v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166; Barnes v. Commissioner,
supra. We reject petitioners’ argument for the same reasons
stated by the Court of Appeals. We add that petitioners’ counsel
participated in the appeal in Fargo as counsel for the amici. On
brief, petitioners suggests that the Court of Appeals knowingly
wrote its opinion in Fargo in such a way as to distinguish that
case from the cases of counsel’s similarly situated clients
(e.g., petitioners), and to otherwise allow those clients’
liabilities for penalties and interest to be forgiven. We do not
read the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Fargo to support that
conclusion. See Keller v. Commissioner, supra; Barnes v.
Commissioner, supra.
Respondent’s rejection of petitioners’ longstanding case
argument was not arbitrary or capricious.
2. The IRM Example
Petitioners argue that respondent erred when he determined
that they were not entitled to relief based on the second example
in IRM section 5.8.11.2.2(3). Petitioners assert that many of
the facts in this case were not present in the example, and,
therefore, any reliance on the example was misplaced.
Petitioners’ argument is not persuasive.
IRM section 5.8.11.2.2(3) discusses effective tax
administration offers-in-compromise based on equity and public
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011