- 29 -
Taking the same approach of assuming arguendo that a claim
advancing prejudice is colorable under the section, we again find
it unnecessary to decide the underlying issue of statutory
construction in that petitioners’ allegations of bias are not
borne out by the totality of the record. Petitioners highlight
two factual circumstances in support of their position. First,
petitioners focus on a reference to “a baseless claim for
inflated housing and insurance costs” in notes made by
Mr. Skidmore on April 26, 2004, recording his activity in
processing the 2001 and 2002 case. The April 26, 2004, entry
reads, in relevant part:
Review of the case for 1999-2000 (closed five months
ago) found that the issues raised were collection
alternatives, and that they qualified for none because
they made a baseless claim for inflated housing and
insurance costs in an effort to show they had no
ability to pay, seeking to justify a lifestyle at the
expense of the government. Specifically, it was
concluded that “You did not provide sufficient
financial information so that these could be
specifically evaluated, but what you did provide
evidenced two significant problems: (1) The testimony
provided indicated no projection of future income could
now be made with confidence in its accuracy. This
would defeat the making of a projection of your future
ability to pay. It is suggested that you again
consider these alternatives after your new business
income has a sufficient history upon which to base
projections. (2) Analysis of your income and expenses
showed large discretionary income which could be
applied to your tax liabilities.” I called the Rep. to
inquire if they had different issues for 2001-2002, and
what they wished to do about the scheduled hearing * *
*
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011