- 33 -
Petitioner’s 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
petitioner offered to compromise his tax liability was
acceptable. As addressed above, respondent’s determination that
the facts and circumstances of petitioner’s case did not warrant
acceptance of his 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
Petitioner argues 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.” Petitioner’s argument is without merit.
Generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving the
Commissioner’s determinations incorrect. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).14 The burden was on
14 While sec. 7491 shifts the burden of proof and/or the
burden of production to the Commissioner in certain
circumstances, this section is not applicable in this case
because respondent’s examination of petitioner’s returns did not
commence after July 22, 1998. See Internal Revenue Service
(continued...)
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011