- 15 -
officer does not abuse her discretion when she fails to take into
account information that she requested and that was not provided
in a reasonable time.” Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 315
(2005), affd. 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006).
Ms. Clark initially requested at Mr. MacQuarrie’s April 13,
2004, summons appearance that the estate file the estate’s
delinquent tax returns within 30 days. After the 30 days had
lapsed and the estate failed to comply, Ms. Clark issued the
above-mentioned Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a
Hearing on May 27, 2004. Almost 6 months later, on November 19,
2004, and only days before the estate’s previously scheduled
collection hearing, the estate requested a delay in the hearing
date to afford the estate additional time to prepare the returns.
Mr. Feist obliged and rescheduled the collection hearing for
December 17, 2004. On the morning of the rescheduled hearing,
the estate once again asked for additional time to prepare the
returns. Mr. Feist declined the estate’s request.
In total, from the time Ms. Clark initially requested the
estate’s delinquent tax returns, the estate had approximately 8
months to prepare and file the returns and failed to do so. In
Roman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-20, this Court stated:
No statutory or regulatory provision requires that
taxpayers be afforded an unlimited opportunity to
supplement the administrative record. Nor are
petitioner’s contentions regarding lack of warning well
taken where the record in this case is replete with
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007