J. Jean Moore - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
               Respondent points out that Rev. Proc. 2000-43, sec. 3,                 
          Q&A-10, 2000-2 C.B. at 406, allows Appeals officers to pass on to           
          respondent’s other employees new information received by an                 
          Appeals officer.  Q&A-10, however, addresses new information                
          “presented by the taxpayer,” not new information obtained by                
          the Appeals Officer via ex parte communications from other of               
          respondent’s employees.  Respondent misreads Q&A-10.                        
               We recognize that under section 7122(a) respondent is given            
          broad discretion to consider and to reject offers-in-compromise,            
          and we defer to respondent’s discretion when it is properly                 
          exercised.  Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1082 (1988).             
          However, the communications before us clearly constituted                   
          prohibited ex parte communications.                                         
               We turn to the appropriate remedy.                                     
               In Robert v. United States, 364 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2004),              
          affg. 91 AFTR 2d 2003-602, 2003-1 USTC par. 50,212 (E.D. Mo.                
          2003), the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth           
          Circuit refused to quash administrative third-party summonses               
          that were issued based on information respondent obtained through           
          prohibited ex parte communications.  The Court of Appeals for the           
          Eighth Circuit explained that it affirmed the District Court’s              
          order enforcing summonses because “The Supreme Court has stated             
          that courts should be slow to erect barriers to enforcement of              
          [respondent’s] summonses where the summonses are being used to              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011