- 8 -
Cir. 2006). Petitioner has not raised any other issue that
amounts to a challenge of the underlying tax liability.
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not
properly in dispute, we review the Commissioner’s determination
for an abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604,
610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181 (2000).
Accordingly, we review respondent’s determination to proceed with
collection of petitioner’s 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax liabilities
for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion has occurred
if the “Commissioner exercised * * * [his] discretion
arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or
law.” Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
II. Analysis Applied to Offers-in-Compromise
“An accepted offer in compromise is properly analyzed as a
contract between the parties.” Dutton v. Commissioner, 122 T.C.
133, 138 (2004). When reviewing whether the Commissioner abused
his discretion in declaring a taxpayer in default on an OIC, our
analysis is governed by “general principles of contract law.”
Id.
III. Parties’ Arguments
The parties have focused their disputes in this case on two
contentious--and familiar--issues. Petitioner urges that, when
analyzing whether respondent abused his discretion by finding
that petitioner defaulted on his OIC, we apply the “material
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011