- 25 -
chose not to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to
section 6330(d)(1) because it is not relevant to the question of
whether the Appeals officer abused her discretion. See Fed. R.
Evid. 401; Morlino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-203.
Petitioner was represented by counsel, Mr. Burke, at all
stages of the section 6330 hearing. Petitioner had been informed
by Mr. Burke that, unless petitioner disclosed the nature of his
illness, Ms. Boudreau would not take illness into account.
Nevertheless, petitioner refused to disclose the nature of his
illness until after Ms. Boudreau had twice decided to close his
case for missed due dates and, in the second instance, lack of a
viable collection alternative. Petitioner had more than an
adequate opportunity to provide Ms. Beaudreau with all of the
evidence he thought necessary to convince her of special
circumstances during the course of the hearing and before May 12,
2003, when Ms. Boudreau decided that respondent’s proposed
collection action should stand. Moreover, petitioner does not
claim any change in his circumstances arising after the
conclusion of the hearing. See Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
at 494 (an allegation of recent, unusual illness or hardship
might warrant the consideration of that new argument). We did
not in Robinette v. Commissioner, supra, sanction the dilatory
introduction at trial of new facts or documents previously
withheld and not produced at the section 6330 hearing in order to
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011