- 19 -
Petitioners’ 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
petitioners offered to compromise their tax liability was
acceptable. As addressed above, respondent’s determination that
the facts and circumstances of petitioners’ case did not warrant
acceptance of their 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
Petitioners argue 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.” Petitioners’ 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).16 The burden was on
16 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 petitioners’ returns did not
commence after July 22, 1998. See Internal Revenue Service
(continued...)
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