James M. Robinette - Page 78

                                       - 78 -                                         
          Id. at 4; see also Roberts v. United States, 225 F. Supp. 2d                
          1138, 1149 (E.D. Mo. 2001) (quoting the latter paragraph in                 
          full).                                                                      
          III.  Conclusion                                                            
               We would sustain respondent’s evidentiary objections on the            
          basis of Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002), and the               
          record rule.  We would also hold that, in light of petitioner’s             
          breach of an express condition of the OIC and his failure to cure           
          that breach despite ample opportunity to do so, respondent’s                
          Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the              
          proposed collection activity.                                               

Page:  Previous  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78