Roy and Antonette Barnes - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          2004-163; Fargo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-13, affd.                  
          447 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2006).  Nor do we usually consider                   
          arguments, issues, or other matters raised for the first time at            
          trial, but we limit ourselves to matter brought to the attention            
          of Appeals.  See Murphy v. Commissioner, supra at 308; Magana v.            
          Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002).  “[E]vidence that * * *             
          [a taxpayer] might have presented at the section 6330 hearing               
          (but 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.”             
          Murphy v. Commissioner, supra at 315.10                                     
               Section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii) allows a taxpayer to offer to               
          compromise a Federal tax debt as a collection alternative to a              
          proposed levy.  Section 7122(c) authorizes the Commissioner to              

               10 In Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301 (2005), the Court           
          declined to include in the record external evidence relating to             
          facts not presented to Appeals.  The Court distinguished                    
          Robinette v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 85 (2004), revd. 439 F.3d 455           
          (8th Cir. 2006), and held that the external evidence was                    
          inadmissible in that it was not relevant to the issue of whether            
          Appeals abused its discretion.  In a memorandum that petitioners            
          filed with the Court on April 13, 2006, pursuant to an order of             
          the Court directing petitioners to explain the relevancy of any             
          external evidence that they desired to include in the record of             
          this case, petitioners made no claim that they had offered any of           
          the external evidence to Cochran.  Instead, as we read                      
          petitioners’ memorandum in the light of the record as a whole,              
          petitioners wanted to include the external evidence in the record           
          of this case to prove that Cochran abused her discretion by not             
          considering facts and documents that they had consciously decided           
          not to give to her.  Consistent with Murphy v. Commissioner,                
          supra, we sustained respondent’s relevancy objections to the                
          external evidence.                                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011