- 22 -
relationship to petitioners’ ability to pay based on their own
calculations.
3. Encouraging Voluntary Compliance With the Tax Laws
We are also mindful that any decision by Ms. Cochran to
accept petitioners’ offer-in-compromise due to doubt as to
collectibility with special circumstances or effective tax
administration based on economic hardship must be viewed against
the backdrop of section 301.7122-1(b)(3)(iii), Proced. & Admin.
Regs.10 See Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150. That
section requires that Ms. Cochran deny petitioners’ offer-in-
compromise if its acceptance would undermine voluntary compliance
with tax laws by taxpayers in general. Thus, even if we were to
assume arguendo that petitioners would suffer economic hardship,
a finding that we decline to make, we would not find that Ms.
Cochran’s rejection of petitioners’ offer-in-compromise was an
abuse of discretion. As discussed below (in our discussion of
petitioners’ “equitable facts” argument), we conclude that
10 The prospect that acceptance of an offer-in-compromise
will undermine compliance with the tax laws militates against its
acceptance whether the offer-in-compromise is predicated on
promotion of effective tax administration or on doubt as to
collectibility with special circumstances. See Rev. Proc. 2003-
71, 2003-2 C.B. 517; IRM sec. 5.8.11.2.2; see also Barnes v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011