- 3 -
should be limited to the administrative record under the Court of
Appeals opinion in Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d 455 (8th
Cir. 2006), revg. 123 T.C. 85 (2004). In view of the years for
which the interest on the underlying liabilities is accruing, we
have decided to proceed with our opinion in this case. The issue
for decision is whether it was an abuse of discretion to refuse
petitioners’ offer-in-compromise and to determine that collection
efforts should proceed.
Background
Although the record is voluminous, we do not here recount in
detail the background of the Hoyt partnerships; that has been
restated many times. We simply outline those facts necessary to
an understanding of petitioners’ arguments to the settlement
officer who conducted the section 6330 hearing and to the Court.
Walter J. Hoyt III (Hoyt or Jay Hoyt)
Many facts and documents have been stipulated in six
separate stipulations filed in this case, which are incorporated
in our findings by this reference. Background facts concerning
the venture in which petitioners invested are described in
“narrative stipulations” relating to Hoyt. From about 1971
through 1998, Hoyt organized and promoted to thousands of
investors more than 100 cattle breeding partnerships and some
sheep partnerships. The partnerships were all organized and
operated in essentially the same manner. In addition, all of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008