- 14 -
5.8.11.2.2(3), at 16,378. We agree with respondent that the
example presents circumstances similar to those in petitioners’
case, including: Petitioners invested in TEFRA partnerships in
the early 1980s; petitioners’ outstanding tax liability is
related to their investment in the partnerships; FPAAs were
issued to the partnerships; respondent proposed a settlement
offer which petitioners rejected;14 after several years of
litigation, Tax Court decisions upheld the vast majority of the
deficiencies asserted in the FPAAs; and petitioners argue that
interest has accumulated as the result of delays by and other
actions of the tax matters partner.
Petitioners are also correct in asserting that not all the
facts in their case are present in the example. However, it is
unreasonable to expect that facts in an example be identical to
facts of a particular case before the example can be relied upon.
The IRM example was only one of many factors respondent
considered. Given the similarities to petitioners’ case,
respondent’s reliance on that example was not arbitrary or
capricious.
3. Petitioners’ Other “Equitable Facts”
Petitioners argue that respondent abused his discretion by
failing to consider the other “equitable facts” of this case.
14 Mr. Freeman testified that he received a settlement
offer, but the details of the settlement offer are not in the
record.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011