- 6 -
The question before us is not whether respondent’s Appeals
Office would have decided differently had it received additional
information. Rather, the question before us is whether
respondent’s Appeals Office acted appropriately and within its
proper discretion based on information it received during the
Appeals Office consideration of petitioners’ appeal. The record
before us answers that question in the affirmative.
Petitioners now claim additional legal expenses,
transportation expenses, and income averaging in order to
establish that respondent’s calculation during the Appeals Office
hearing of petitioners’ RCP was too high.
These items constitute new issues and will not be allowed.
See Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493-494 (2002).
Furthermore, as we stated in Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C.
301, 315 (2005), when Appeals officers make reasonable requests
for relevant documentation from taxpayers and taxpayers do not
produce the documentation in a reasonable time, the Appeals
officer commits no abuse of discretion in making a determination
without regard to the missing information.
For the reasons stated, we shall grant respondent’s motion
for summary judgment.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered for
respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011