- 16 -
underlying section 7122. Petitioners’ argument on this point is
essentially the same argument that was considered and rejected by
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fargo v.
Commissioner, 447 F.3d at 711-712. We do likewise here for the
same reasons stated in that opinion. We add that petitioners’
counsel participated in the appeal in Fargo as counsel for the
amici. While petitioners in their brief suggest that the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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
otherwise to allow those clients to receive an abatement of their
liability attributable to partnerships such as those here, we do
not read the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Fargo to support that conclusion.
Third, petitioners argue that Cochran inadequately
considered their unique facts and circumstances. We disagree.
Cochran reviewed and considered all information given to her by
petitioners. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of
petitioners’ case as they were presented to her, Cochran
determined that petitioners’ offer did not meet the applicable
guidelines for acceptance of an offer-in-compromise to promote
effective tax administration based on economic hardship or public
policy or equity grounds. We find no abuse of discretion in that
determination. Nor do we find that Cochran inadequately
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