- 21 -
time spent by the Appeals officer in reviewing her case and the
officer’s failure to request updated financial information
justify augmentation of the record.
The Court stated its position on this issue in Ewing v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 44 (in exercising our jurisdiction
under section 6015(e)(1)(A) “to determine” whether a taxpayer is
entitled to relief under section 6015(f), it is appropriate for
this Court de novo to consider evidence beyond the administrative
record), vacated on other grounds 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).
However, because here the outcome flowing from a limited review
of the administrative record alone and that obtaining after
taking into account all information proffered by petitioner are
identical, the Court finds it unnecessary to comment further on
the merits of the parties’ differing views of the proper record
for review.
During the administrative phase, petitioner submitted a Form
12510 dated July 22, 2003, showing an excess of income over
expenses of approximately $2,980 per month. This portrayal
clearly fails to reflect economic hardship, and we do not read
petitioner’s arguments to contend otherwise. Nor does petitioner
suggest that she provided updated financial information to the
Appeals officer at any time prior to his final recommendations on
her case in early 2005. To the extent that petitioner intimates
that the burden rested entirely on the Appeals officer to request
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007