- 22 -
B. Petitioner’s Second Contention
Second, petitioner contends that respondent seized
petitioner’s tax records when Mr. Amigron was arrested and then
lost some of those records, thereby depriving petitioner of the
opportunity of defending himself against respondent’s deficiency
determinations.
The evidentiary record does not conclusively establish that
petitioner’s tax records were seized when Mr. Amigron was
arrested. However, respondent does not contest the allegation,
and the evidentiary record does establish that respondent mailed
a box to petitioner, which box (petitioner alleges) contained his
tax records. We shall therefore proceed on the basis that
petitioner’s tax records were seized when Mr. Amigron was
arrested in May 1991.
We do not regard the seizure of records in conjunction with
an arrest pursuant to a grand jury felony indictment to be a
ministerial act within the meaning of section 301.6404-2T(b)(1),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13,
1987). See Taylor v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 206 (1999).
Petitioner does not appear to contend to the contrary; rather, he
alleges that respondent’s agents who executed the arrest warrant
failed to inventory what was seized and “they did not give me
notice on that.” However, these allegations are unsupported in
the record. Thus, there is no evidence, other than petitioner’s
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011