- 20 -
trial testimony. Respondent points out that, in Robinette, some
of the Judges of the Court expressed reservation to, in all
circumstances, allowing testimony or admitting other evidence not
presented to Appeals. E.g., Robinette v. Commissioner, 123 T.C.
at 115 (Wells, J., concurring) (distinguishing situation where
taxpayer refuses to furnish relevant evidence requested at
section 6330 hearing), id. at 116 (Thornton, J., concurring)
(suggesting it might be appropriate not to admit testimony or
other evidence when the taxpayer has failed to cooperate in
presenting relevant evidence at the section 6330 hearing), id. at
120 (Wherry, J., concurring) (“[The holding of the case] should
not be construed as sanctioning the dilatory introduction at
trial of new facts or documents previously withheld and not
produced at the Appeals hearing in order to justify reversal or
remand of the Appeals or settlement officer’s determination.”).
Respondent argues that petitioner should not be allowed to
introduce his testimony and the testimony of Ms. Boudreau because
his conduct during the hearing was marked by missed due dates and
constant requests for extensions of time to provide requested
information. Respondent points out that the only issue raised by
petitioner was an offer in compromise, and he was given ample
opportunity to present an acceptable offer before he missed yet
another self-established due date (without warning Ms. Boudreau)
and she closed the case. As a result, respondent concludes, our
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011