Donald Ertz - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          that the tax laws are being administered in a fair and equitable            
          manner.  Respondent determined that petitioner’s reasonable                 
          collection potential was $503,834 and that petitioner’s offer-in-           
          compromise did not meet the criteria for an offer-in-compromise             
          based on either doubt as to collectibility with special                     
          circumstances or effective tax administration.                              
               Insofar as the underlying tax liability is not at issue, our           
          review under section 6330 is for abuse of discretion.10  See Sego           
          v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner,            
          114. T.C. 176, 182 (2000).  This standard does not ask us to                
          decide whether in our own opinion petitioner’s offer-in-                    
          compromise should have been accepted, but whether respondent’s              
          rejection of the offer-in-compromise was arbitrary, capricious,             
          or without sound basis in fact or law.  Woodral v. Commissioner,            
          112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999); Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-            
          166; Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163.  Because the              
          same factors are taken into account in evaluating offers-in-                
          compromise based on doubt as to collectibility with special                 
          circumstances and on effective tax administration (economic                 
          hardship or public policy and equity), we consider petitioner’s             
          separate grounds for his offer-in-compromise together.  See                 


               10  With the exception of his liability for sec. 6621(c)               
          interest, petitioner does not argue that his underlying tax                 
          liability is at issue.  The sec. 6621(c) interest issue is                  
          discussed infra.                                                            




Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011