- 26 -
inappropriate for the Government to play that role here, where
the transaction at issue is participation in a tax shelter.
Reducing the risks of participating in tax shelters would
encourage more taxpayers to run those risks, thus undermining
rather than enhancing compliance with the tax laws. See Barnes
v. Commissioner, supra.
C. Petitioner’s Other Arguments
1. Compromise of Penalties and Interest in an Effective
Tax Administration Offer-in-Compromise
Petitioner advances a number of arguments focusing on his
assertion that respondent determined that penalties and interest
could not be compromised in an effective tax administration
offer-in-compromise. Petitioner argues that such a determination
is contrary to legislative history and is therefore an abuse of
discretion. As discussed above, petitioner does not qualify for
an effective tax administration offer-in-compromise because he
does not have the ability to pay his outstanding tax liability in
full. Thus, we do not need to consider whether respondent can or
should compromise penalties and interest in an effective tax
administration offer-in-compromise.
2. Information Sufficient for the Court To Review
Respondent’s Determination
Petitioner argues that respondent failed to provide the
Court with sufficient information so that the Court can conduct a
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