- 15 -
54-56 (1964); see also Crosby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1970-286.
We are unable to conclude under the facts herein that
respondent violated the second examination prohibition of section
7605(b). The record simply does not persuade us that respondent
performed more than one inspection of petitioner's books of
account. Whereas petitioner argues that a second inspection
occurred mainly because the revenue agent, on behalf of the
Commissioner, prepared two reports, we do not agree. That the
Commissioner may issue two or more reports on a single taxable
year of a taxpayer does not necessarily mean that the
Commissioner performed more than one examination of the
taxpayer's books of account. See United States v. Balanced Fin.
Mgt., Inc., 769 F.2d 1440, 1446 (10th Cir. 1985) ("'the standard
is whether the examination or investigation sought by the IRS is
unnecessarily duplicative of some prior examination'" (quoting
United States v. Davey, 543 F.2d 996, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976)); see
also Brodhead v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-113. The
applicability of section 7605(b), as relevant herein, turns as a
threshold matter upon a finding of unnecessary multiple
examinations of a taxpayer's books of account and does not rest
upon a finding that a revenue agent may have prepared multiple
reports on his or her examination of the underlying year. See
Feldman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-132; see also Hall v.
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