- 19 -
attempts to reschedule an Appeals conference were unsuccessful
because the Blue Gem TMP ignored and never responded to his
telephone messages and letters regarding the scheduling of a
conference.11
Appeals Officer Koniarski explained his remarkable patience
and occasional persistence during this time period by pointing
out that he was attempting to evaluate what additions to tax and
penalties, if any, should be imposed in the Blue Gem case.
According to Mr. Koniarski, information from the Blue Gem TMP may
have had a material impact on his decision-making process, and he
did not want to deprive the Blue Gem investors of a fully
developed record regarding the additions to tax and penalties.
Mr. Koniarski also testified that, during this time period, he
was working on other cases when he was not working on the Blue
Gem case.
Reduced to its essence, the record discloses that Appeals
Officer Koniarski made a few attempts to contact the Blue Gem TMP
during this time period. The rest of the time Mr. Koniarski
worked his other cases. In short, what we must examine in the
context of section 6404 is Mr. Koniarski’s management of his
caseload.
11Appeals Officer Koniarski testified that, in addition to
his May 8, 1992, and March 8, 1994, letters to the Blue Gem TMP,
he made a number of telephone calls to the Blue Gem TMP during
this period that were never returned.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011