- 10 -
Petitioner argues that his testimony “[demonstrates] the
inflexibility of the Hearing Officer”.
C. Discussion
At trial, petitioner specifically disclaimed that his
underlying liability for the unpaid tax is at issue. The
appropriate standard of review is, therefore, abuse of
discretion. See supra sec. II of this report.
Robinette v. Commissioner, supra, is a case of this Court in
which, pursuant to section 6330(d)(1), we reviewed a
determination by an Appeals officer to proceed with collection of
an unpaid tax. Since the taxpayer’s underlying liability was not
an issue, we determined that the proper standard of review was
abuse of discretion. Id. at 94. Nevertheless, we considered
testimony and other evidence that was not part of the
administrative record. Id. at 103-104. We noted, however, that
any evidence admissible in a trial before this court had to be
admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 103. We
rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the evidence in
question was inadmissible because not relevant. Id. at 103-104
(discussing rules 401 and 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence).
We found the evidence relevant because it tended to show that the
2(...continued)
notwithstanding that, barring stipulation of the parties to the
contrary, appeal of this case would lie to the Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit. See sec. 7482(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011