- 21 -
relief.10 Petitioner also reminded the Appeals officer that the
burden of proof is on the Commissioner to show actual knowledge
and advised him of the proper standard for actual knowledge as
set forth in King v. Commissioner, supra at 204. Further, in the
cover letter attached to the statement of disagreement,
petitioner offered to provide additional factual information to
the Appeals officer upon request.
The Appeals Office issued its notice of determination nearly
1 year after petitioner submitted her September 14, 2001,
statement. The record, however, does not disclose any effort by
the Appeals Office to request any additional factual information
from petitioner or to pose any questions to petitioner after the
September 14, 2001, statement of disagreement or before the
notice of determination was issued on September 9, 2002.
Respondent had ample opportunity to obtain the additional
information he felt he needed to accept petitioner’s
representations regarding the section 6015(c) requirements and
the exceptions to relief contained in section 6015(c)(3)(C), (4)
and (d)(3)(C) during the administrative proceeding, but he did
not request any additional information from petitioner until the
discovery phase of this case. Respondent’s delay in obtaining
10A party’s statement, if credible, is evidence on which the
finder of fact may rely to establish a relevant fact. In this
case, there is nothing in the record to suggest that petitioner’s
statement regarding her lack of actual knowledge was not
credible.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011