- 15 -
We turn now to petitioner’s argument that under Robinette v.
Commissioner, 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006), the Court may not
consider the respective Forms 4340 with respect to petitioner’s
taxable years 2001 and 2002 in determining whether to grant
respondent’s motion. In support of that argument, petitioner
asserts in petitioner’s response:
this is a review of an administrative decision. As
such, the Court is limited to reviewing the conclusions
made in the decision, the reasons given for the conclu-
sions, and it must base its review on the same record
that was considered by the administrative hearing
officer. See Robinette v Commissioner, 439 F.3d 455,
459 (8th Cir 2006). Outside of limited exceptions, the
Court may not conduct a trial de novo, make decisions
in the first instance (i.e. decide issues not decided
at the administrative level), or consider new materi-
als/evidence not considered by the administrative
hearing officer. Id. These limitations would neces-
sarily exclude materials dated after the administrative
decision, such as Respondent’s exhibits E and F [Form
4340 with respect to petitioner’s taxable years 2001
and 2002] (which are dated March 2006; the administra-
tive decision was issued December 2005). [Fn. ref.
omitted.] [Reproduced literally.]
Petitioner’s argument regarding the respective Forms 4340
with respect to petitioner’s taxable years 2001 and 2002 appears
to be based on his misunderstanding as to what Form 4340 is. As
discussed above, Form 4340 is a noncoded computer-generated
transcript that is generated on a specified date and that shows
(1) certain information in the official computer records of the
10(...continued)
and the 2002 notice of deficiency. Petitioner does not assert
that there are any other genuine issues of material fact regard-
ing the questions raised in respondent’s motion.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007