- 17 -
Nor do we find that Driver inadequately considered the
information given to her by petitioners. Driver accepted all of
the values for assets, liabilities, income, and expenses given to
her by petitioners on their Form 433-A, and she only increased
the value of petitioners’ total assets to take into account the
unreported assets which she uncovered during her independent
analysis. Indeed, even in the case of the unreported assets,
Driver’s valuation of those assets did not significantly depart
from petitioners’ valuation of those assets.8 We find that
Driver gave thorough consideration to all of petitioners’ claims
in the light of all of the facts that were communicated to her by
petitioners or were otherwise learned by her from other sources.
As petitioners view this issue, the opinion of the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fargo v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d
706 (9th Cir. 2006), requires that Appeals accept their $11,552
offer because, they claim, their investment in the Hoyt
partnerships was not purely tax motivated, they were victims of
Hoyt’s fraud, and respondent and Hoyt caused a significant delay
in the resolution of respondent’s examinations of the Hoyt
partnerships. We do not read Fargo v. Commissioner, supra, as
8 Petitioners’ sole dispute with Driver’s valuation of their
assets relates to the unreported lots, which petitioners contend
had no value. We cannot fathom that the lots had no value
whatsoever, and we do not believe that it was an abuse of
Driver’s discretion to value each lot at a minimal average value
of $500.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007