- 16 -
appropriateness of collection. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(A)(ii);
Swanson v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner argues that a de novo standard of review is
appropriate because he “put forth the argument of the validity of
the underlying taxes--i.e. the petitioner does not owe the tax,
nor the additions to the tax, since the tax was previously
discharged by an Offer in Compromise which was improperly
defaulted by the respondent”. We view petitioner’s argument as a
challenge to the appropriateness of collection, rather than as a
challenge to the underlying tax liability. See Swanson v.
Commissioner, supra.
III. Evidentiary Issue
A. The Parties’ Contentions
At trial, respondent moved to strike “all documents and
testimony not part of the administrative record on the ground
that the trial record should be limited to the agency
administrative record.” Documents and testimony not part of the
administrative record include: (1) Petitioner’s testimony; (2)
petitioner’s tax returns for 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, and
other stipulated facts relating to the date these returns were
received by the IRS; (3) Mr. Coy’s private postage meter log,
cellular telephone records, credit card records, and daily
calendar for October 15, 1999; (4) Frances Robinette’s testimony;
and (5) all statements made by Mr. Coy at trial that he did not
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011