-21-
basis of the facts as he believed them to be. Cox as of the time
of the conversation had gathered all information that he believed
was necessary to show that petitioner owned one or more of the
relevant assets and that petitioner had fraudulently omitted one
or more of those assets from his financial statements. The
record does not establish that Cox during the conversation sought
or received the advice or direction of Voorhees as to any
information that Cox needed to obtain to build a better criminal
(or civil) case against petitioner. In fact, the record does not
establish that Cox during or after his conversation with Voorhees
acquired any information at all from or about petitioner.7
As to petitioners’ third assertion, they argue that Cox
violated section 7605(b) by conducting more than one examination
of petitioner. We disagree. Pursuant to section 7605(b), the
Commissioner generally may inspect a taxpayer’s books or records
for a taxable year only once. “‘[T]he standard is whether the
examination or investigation sought by the IRS is unnecessarily
duplicative of some prior examination’”. United States v.
Balanced Fin. Mgmt., Inc., 769 F.2d 1440, 1446 (10th Cir. 1985)
(quoting United States v. Davey, 543 F.2d 996, 1000 (2d Cir.
1976)). Petitioners have not demonstrated that the Commissioner
7 While petitioners ask the Court to conclude that Voorhees
directed Cox to reopen his collection case, we do not find that
such was so. Nor do we find, as petitioners ask us to, that Cox
and Voorhees participated in a “joint collaborative effort” in
preparing the referral of petitioner to CID.
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