- 12 -
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, supra 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 suggest 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 Fargo to support that
conclusion. See Keller v. Commissioner, supra; Barnes v.
Commissioner, supra.
Respondent’s rejection of petitioners’ longstanding case
argument was not arbitrary or capricious.
2. The IRM Example
Petitioners argue that respondent erred when he determined
that they were not entitled to relief based on the second example
in IRM section 5.8.11.2.2(3). Petitioners assert that many of
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011