- 16 -
their financial status and acceptance of the offer would
undermine compliance with the tax laws by taxpayers in general.
She determined that petitioners’ offer to pay $11,552 was
unacceptable because they had the financial wherewithal to pay
more than that amount. Driver’s ultimate determination to reject
petitioners’ $11,552 offer-in-compromise was not arbitrary,
capricious, or without a sound basis in fact or law, and it was
not abusive or unfair to petitioners. Her determination was
based on a reasonable application of the guidelines, which we
decline to second-guess. See Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C.
165 (2005), affd. 454 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 2006).
In their posttrial opening brief, petitioners essentially
make four arguments in advocating a contrary result. First,
petitioners argue that Driver did not adequately consider their
unique facts and circumstances. We disagree. Driver reviewed
and considered all information given to her by petitioners. On
the basis of the facts and circumstances of petitioners’ case as
gleaned from that information, as well as learned from other
information obtained during her independent analysis, Driver
determined that petitioners’ offer did not meet the applicable
guidelines for acceptance of an offer-in-compromise to promote
effective tax administration because acceptance of that offer
would undermine compliance with the tax laws by taxpayers in
general. We find no abuse of discretion in that determination.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007