Debra Anne Banderas - Page 23

                                       - 23 -                                         
          Appeals officer acted arbitrarily or capriciously in relying on             
          the information previously provided.                                        
               Additionally, the Court is not persuaded that petitioner’s             
          remarks concerning the quantum of time devoted to her case should           
          have any bearing on our analysis.  The recorded time is in no way           
          patently insufficient, and the Court is not in a position to                
          divine any type of arbitrary standard as to the time it might               
          take an individual to properly evaluate a given set of facts.               
               At trial, petitioner sought to introduce three 1-page sheets           
          of financial information, all dated November 14, 2005 (the date             
          of the calendar call):  (1) A listing of assets and liabilities;            
          (2) a listing of purported actual current income and expenses;              
          and (3) a listing of current income and expenses incorporating              
          national, regional, and local IRS standards.  The listings were             
          not accompanied by any supporting documentation.  Counsel for               
          respondent objected on grounds, in part, that she was not                   
          provided with the exhibits until the morning of trial.  The                 
          Court, in light of the Standing Pretrial Order and citing the               
          prejudice to respondent’s ability to prepare for cross-                     
          examination, sustained the objection, and the documents were not            
          admitted.  Instead, petitioner testified regarding her estimates            
          of various assets, liabilities, income amounts, and expenses.               
               Petitioner then filed a posttrial brief and attached thereto           
          three tables, purportedly summarizing petitioner’s testimony and            

Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007