- 17 -
nor did she prematurely and improperly conclude the hearing.
Respondent objects to the admission of both petitioner’s and
Ms. Boudreau’s trial testimony on the ground that the testimony
is not relevant to our deciding whether Ms. Boudreau abused her
discretion.
V. Admissibility of Trial Testimony
A. Trial Testimony
At the trial of this case, over the objection of respondent,
petitioner testified as to his marriage and divorce, his military
service, his health, and his credit card debt, all as it affected
his ability to pay his tax liabilities as they came due. Also
over the objection of respondent, petitioner testified as to the
onset in April 2003 of cardiovascular problems that limit his
ability to work. Over the objection of respondent, Ms. Boudreau
testified as to various entries in her case activity record and
certain aspects of the process by which she reached her decisions
to reject the offer in compromise and close petitioner’s case.
The Court noted respondent’s objections but reserved its ruling.
B. Positions of the Parties
1. Respondent’s Position
Respondent’s relevancy objection is based on the fact that
petitioner’s underlying tax liability was not raised at the
hearing and is not before the Court. Accordingly, respondent
argues, the appropriate standard for our review of the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011