- 39 -
basis for her calculations. Considering all of petitioner’s
claims of bad faith, we fail to find that Ms. Boudreau conducted
the hearing in bad faith.
Petitioner claims: Ms. Boudreau “did not act with
flexibility but with a clear predisposition toward an inflexible
and expeditious determination of the Petitioner's matter.” The
facts in evidence hardly lead to that conclusion. Ms. Boudreau
tolerated numerous missed due dates. She reopened the case after
she had closed it on account of a missed due date. After
rejecting the offer in compromise, she invited another offer.
When that offer was not timely received, she closed the case but
considered reopening it when Mr. Burke belatedly telephoned her.
We do not find that Ms. Boudreau was inflexible. While she may
have been predisposed to an expeditious conclusion of
petitioner’s case, we see nothing wrong with that, given the
facts before us.
Petitioner claims: Ms. Boudreau “was biased by her belief
that the hearing had to be promptly concluded.” Besides the fact
that Ms. Boudreau rejected the offer and, after almost 2 months,
gave up on petitioner’s promise to submit a new offer, petitioner
has shown no facts that would support his claim of bias. As we
made plain supra p. 35 of this report, there is no requirement
that an Appeals officer wait a certain amount of time
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011