- 25 -
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
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
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011