- 32 -
other words, the Secretary may compromise a taxpayer’s tax
liability if he determines that grounds for a compromise exist.
If the Secretary determines that grounds do not exist, the amount
offered (or the way in which the offer is calculated) need not be
considered.
Petitioners’ arguments regarding the compromise of penalties
and interest do not relate to whether there are grounds for a
compromise. Instead, these arguments go to whether the amount
petitioners offered to compromise their tax liability was
acceptable. As addressed above, respondent’s determination that
the facts and circumstances of petitioners’ case did not warrant
acceptance of their offer-in-compromise was not arbitrary or
capricious and was thus not an abuse of discretion. Because no
grounds for compromise exist, we need not address whether
respondent can or should compromise penalties and interest in an
effective tax administration offer-in-compromise. See Keller v.
Commissioner, supra.
2. Information Sufficient for the Court To Review
Respondent’s Determination
Petitioners argue that respondent failed to provide the
Court with sufficient information “so that this Court can conduct
a thorough, probing, and in-depth review of respondent’s
determinations.” Petitioners’ argument is without merit.
Generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving the
Commissioner’s determinations incorrect. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch
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