- 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