- 15 -
Petitioners’ “equitable facts” include reference to: (1)
Petitioners’ reliance on Bales v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-
568;15 (2) petitioners’ reliance on Hoyt’s enrolled agent status;
(3) Hoyt’s criminal conviction; (4) Hoyt’s fraud on petitioners;
and (5) other letters and cases. The basic thrust of
petitioners’ argument is that they were defrauded by Hoyt and
that, if they were held responsible for penalties and interest
incurred as a result of their investment in a tax shelter, it
would be inequitable and against public policy. Petitioners’
argument is not persuasive.
While the regulations do not set forth a specific standard
for evaluating an offer-in-compromise based on claims of public
policy or equity, the regulations contain two examples. See sec.
301.7122-1(c)(3)(iv), Examples (1) and (2), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. The first example describes a taxpayer who is seriously
ill and unable to file income tax returns for several years. The
15 Bales v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-568, involved
deficiencies determined against various investors in several Hoyt
partnerships. This Court found in favor of the investors on
several issues, stating that “the transaction in issue should be
respected for Federal income tax purposes.” Taxpayers in many
Hoyt-related cases have used Bales as the basis for a reasonable
cause defense to accuracy-related penalties. This argument has
been uniformly rejected by this Court and by the Courts of
Appeals for the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. See, e.g.,
Hansen v. Commissioner, 471 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C.
Memo. 2004-269; Mortensen v. Commissioner, 440 F.3d 375, 390-391
(6th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-279; Van Scoten v.
Commissioner, 439 F.3d 1243, 1254-1256 (10th Cir. 2006), affg.
T.C. Memo. 2004-275.
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