- 49 -
the evidence in support of their respective positions. Even the
Commissioner has routinely sought to add evidence to the record
in trials before this Court in order to bolster his determination
in collection cases. See Chase v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-
93, affd. 55 Fed. Appx. 717 (5th Cir. 2002); Lindsey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87, affd. 56 Fed. Appx. 802 (9th
Cir. 2003); Holliday v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-67, affd.
57 Fed. Appx. 774 (9th Cir. 2003).
Regarding this issue, I also do not believe that allowing
petitioner to present evidence in the instant case would mean
that in other cases where a person refuses to comply with an
Appeals officer’s reasonable request for relevant evidence at the
hearing, we would be required to receive that evidence in a trial
in this Court. In the instant case, petitioner attempted to
present a wide array of evidence to support his position, and the
Appeals officer refused to receive it. Thus, the case where a
person refuses to furnish relevant evidence requested at the
Appeals Office hearing is not before us and raises an issue the
Court has not addressed and need not address.
Accordingly, I agree with the conclusion of the majority
opinion that respondent should be prevented from proceeding with
collection in the instant case.
GERBER, FOLEY, MARVEL, and WHERRY, JJ., agree with this
concurring opinion.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011