- 21 -
Memo. 2007-29; Freeman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-28;
Hubbart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-26; Carter v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-25; Abelein v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2007-24; Ertz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-15;
McDonough v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-234; Lindley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-229; Clayton v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2006-188; Keller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-166;
Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-150.
All of the arguments made by petitioners were thoroughly
discussed in Ertz v. Commissioner, supra. As in the other cases,
petitioners’ arguments were considered by the settlement officer,
although the arguments were not accepted. As we stated in Ertz:
compromising petitioner’s case on grounds of public
policy or equity would not enhance voluntary compliance
by other taxpayers. A compromise on that basis would
place the Government in the unenviable role of an
insurer against poor business decisions by taxpayers,
reducing the incentive for taxpayers to investigate
thoroughly the consequences of transactions into which
they enter. It would be particularly 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 [T.C.
Memo. 2006-150].
In concluding that it was not an abuse of discretion to
accept the offer-in-compromise at less than 20 percent of
petitioners’ estimated total liability, we do not determine an
acceptable offer-in-compromise or other alternative means of
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008