Wendell Ray Holloway - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          preferring instead to submit this case on the stipulation and his           
          written arguments.                                                          
               Respondent, on the other hand, filed a motion for summary              
          judgment based on a declaration of Williams “setting out the                
          relevant documents contained in the administrative file from the            
          CDP hearing”.  Respondent contends that:                                    
                    Testimony and/or evidence outside of the                          
               administrative record may be admissible if the                         
               administrative record does not completely disclose all                 
               of the factors considered by the agency or if there is                 
               a dispute over what happened during the hearing                        
               process.  Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301 (2005)                  
               (new evidence regarding an irregularity in the conduct                 
               of a hearing or some defect in the record may be                       
               presented at trial, even if the record rule is                         
               applicable).  See also Robinette, 439 F.3d, at 461 (“Of                
               course, where a record created in informal proceedings                 
               does not adequately disclose the basis for the agency’s                
               decision, then it may be appropriate for the reviewing                 
               court to receive evidence concerning what happened                     
               during the agency proceedings.”  (citation omitted)).                  
               The administrative record in this case, however, not                   
               only completely discloses all of the factors that                      
               respondent’s settlement officer considered in making                   
               his determination, but also confirms that he did not                   
               omit any relevant factor required to make such                         
               determination, and petitioner has failed to allege                     
               material facts or otherwise make a prima facie showing                 
               that any exceptions to the record rule apply.                          
          Respondent also alleged:                                                    
                    On February 10, 2005, petitioner met with                         
               respondent’s Revenue Officer Sheila Stewart in                         
               respondent’s Owensboro, Kentucky office to discuss                     
               petitioner’s unpaid income tax liabilities.  During                    
               that meeting, petitioner told Revenue Officer Stewart                  
               that he had received the prior correspondence sent to                  
               him by respondent’s Innocent Spouse Unit in Cincinnati,                
               Ohio, regarding the innocent spouse relief claim filed                 
               by Tammy S. Holloway and that he did not contest or                    
               otherwise dispute such claim by her because he feared                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007