- 22 -
a. Longstanding Case
Petitioner asserts that the legislative history requires
respondent to resolve “longstanding” cases by forgiving penalties
and interest which would otherwise apply. Petitioner argues
that, because this is a longstanding case, respondent abused his
discretion by failing to accept their offer-in-compromise.
Petitioner’s argument is essentially the same considered and
rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fargo
v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d at 711-712. See also Keller v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166; Barnes v. Commissioner, supra.
We reject petitioner’s argument for the same reasons stated by
the Court of Appeals. We add that petitioner’s counsel
participated in the appeal in Fargo, as counsel for the amici.
On brief, petitioner suggests that the Court of Appeals 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., petitioner), and to otherwise allow those clients’
liabilities for penalties and interest to be forgiven. We do not
read the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Fargo to support that
conclusion. See Keller v. Commissioner, supra; Barnes v.
Commissioner, supra.
Respondent’s rejection of petitioner’s longstanding case
argument was not arbitrary or capricious.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011