- 16 -
whether by the petitioner, the Commissioner, or by a third party,
alters the type of evidence which may be offered to establish a
fact, but the rule does not affect the burden of proving a fact.”
Fed. R. Evid. 1004; Malinowski v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 1120,
1125 (1979). Petitioners do not claim that their tax records
were intentionally lost. In the course of the bankruptcy case,
they had approximately 11 months to conduct discovery, and any
relief that they thought they deserved on account of the absence
of their records they could have requested from the bankruptcy
court. We see no merit to their claim that they had an
inadequate opportunity to challenge the IRS’s proof of claim.
C. No Abuse of Discretion
In response to their requests for collection due process
hearings, petitioners and their counsel were afforded a 2-hour,
face-to-face conference with Appeals Officer Powell. Petitioners
complain that the conference did not amount to a proper hearing
because they were not allowed to raise the underlying
liabilities. Since they had no right to raise the underlying
liabilities, that complaint is without merit. Petitioners argue
that the Appeals Office abused its discretion by issuing the
notices of determination while an offer in compromise was
pending. Apparently, petitioners did submit an offer in
compromise to someone at the IRS, but not to the Appeals Office
conducting their collection due process hearing. Moreover, that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011