Juanita and Emmanuel Kendricks - Page 16

                                       - 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