- 19 -
Commissioner could proceed to collect unpaid taxes that had been
compromised pursuant to an agreement that required the taxpayer
to file his income tax returns on time for a period of 5 years
(or face collection of the compromised amount). The taxpayer had
breached the agreement by failing to file timely a return
governed by the agreement. We received into evidence in addition
to the administrative record both testimony and documents that
showed (1) the taxpayer’s good faith efforts to file his return
in a timely manner, (2) the Appeals officer’s refusal to consider
certain evidence that the return was filed timely, and (3) his
unwillingness at the hearing to consider in depth his authority
to reinstate the offer in compromise. Id. at 103-104. We found
the testimony and documents relevant to the question of whether
the Appeals officer had abused his discretion in approving
collection of the compromised taxes. Id. at 104. We found that
he had abused his discretion, in part because he (1) “had a
closed mind to the arguments presented on petitioner’s behalf”
and (2) “failed to consider the facts and circumstances of this
case.” Id. at 107.
If we do not adopt his implicit suggestion that we overrule
Robinette v. Commissioner, supra, and apply the record rule in
reviewing for abuse of discretion under section 6330(d),
respondent asks that we distinguish the facts of this case from
those of Robinette and exclude petitioner’s and Ms. Boudreau’s
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011