Estate of Carol Andrews, Deceased, Robert Andrews, Special Administrator, and Robert Andrews - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         
          and 1990s.  See Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166;                
          Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150.                                
               Of course, the examples in the regulations are not meant to            
          be exhaustive, and petitioners have a more sympathetic case than            
          the taxpayers in Fargo v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d at 714, for whom           
          the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that “no                   
          evidence was presented to suggest that Taxpayers were the subject           
          of fraud or deception”.  Such considerations, however, have not             
          kept this Court from finding investors in the Hoyt tax shelters             
          to be liable for penalties and interest, nor have they prevented            
          the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits              
          from affirming our decisions to that effect.  See Hansen v.                 
          Commissioner, 471 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo.               
          2004-269; Mortensen v. Commissioner, 440 F.3d 375 (6th Cir.                 
          2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-279; Van Scoten v. Commissioner, 439           
          F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-275.                      
               Ms. Cochran testified that she considered all of Ms.                   
          Merriam’s and petitioners’ assertions, including the numerous               
          letters and exhibits.  Nevertheless, Ms. Cochran determined that            
          petitioners did not qualify for an offer-in-compromise.                     
               The mere fact that petitioners’ “equitable facts” did not              
          persuade respondent to accept their offer-in-compromise does not            
          mean that those assertions were not considered.  The notice of              
          determination and Ms. Cochran’s testimony demonstrate                       

Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011