- 30 -
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
respondent’s clear understanding and careful consideration of the
facts and circumstances of petitioners’ case. We find that
respondent’s determination that the “equitable facts” did not
justify acceptance of petitioners’ offer-in-compromise was not
arbitrary or capricious, and thus it was not an abuse of
discretion.
We also find that compromising petitioners’ case on grounds
of public policy or equity would not enhance voluntary compliance
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011