- 20 -
referenced in their brief) in fact “knew that, barring some
affirmative indication of payment prior to assessment, the
remittance was a deposit” under Fifth Circuit precedent at the
time, the existence of such precedent is not relevant to our
determination of petitioners’ intent with regard to the 1994
remittance.
2. Petitioners’ Failure To Develop the Record
Petitioners apparently are content to rely solely on the
representations of Mr. Wellman contained in the C.P.A. letter to
establish their intent regarding the 1994 remittance. There is
no indication in the record that petitioners provided Appeals
with any evidence that would corroborate those representations,
nor do petitioners allege that Appeals refused to consider any
such evidence.14 Furthermore, because petitioners chose (with
respondent’s acquiescence) to submit these cases without trial
pursuant to Rule 122, there is no pertinent evidence before us
that was not before Appeals.15
Petitioners’ exclusive reliance on the C.P.A. letter is all
the more puzzling considering the source. There is no indication
14 In her case memorandum for each petitioner, respondent’s
Appeals officer states that petitioners did not present any
documents to elaborate on the litigation involving the sale of
their business.
15 Accordingly, since we reach the same result as did
Appeals, our disposition of these cases does not depend on
whether we review Appeals’ determinations for abuse of discretion
or on a de novo basis.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011