- 13 -
extent such information and its relevance were known or should
have been known * * * at the time of such conference.” Id.
In an earlier case, concerning whether a taxpayer
participated in an Appeals conference, we held that the requisite
participation was present even though the taxpayer “failed to
answer all of the questions and to supply all of the * * *
documents [requested by the Appeals officer].” Rogers v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-374. The taxpayer’s attorney in
that case had provided some answers to the Appeals officer’s
questions, and, in order to avoid further costs, made an offer of
settlement, to which the Appeals officer made a counteroffer.
The definition of the term “participates”, as set forth in
section 301.7430-1(b)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs., was avoided in
Rogers because the Appeals conference took place after the
issuance of the notice of deficiency. In Rogers v. Commissioner,
supra, the Court looked to section 301.7430-1(f), Proced. &
Admin. Regs.,10 which contains exceptions to the requirement that
10 At the time relevant to Rogers v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1987-374, the requirement was set forth in paragraph (f) of
sec. 301.7430-1 Proced. & Admin. Regs. Under the regulation at
that time, the definition of “participates” was “For the purposes
of this paragraph,” which was limited to pre-petition Appeals
conferences. Accordingly, the Court in Rogers v. Commissioner,
supra, distinguished situations where the conference occurred
after the issuance of a notice of deficiency and filing of a
petition. The revised version of that regulation is currently in
sec. 301.7430-1(b)(2) and uses the phrase “For purposes of this
section”. Accordingly, the pre- or post-petition distinction of
Rogers v. Commissioner, supra, may no longer pertain.
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