- 33 -
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).19 The burden was on
petitioners to show that respondent abused his discretion. The
burden was not on respondent to provide enough information to
show that he did not abuse his discretion. Nevertheless, we find
that we had more than sufficient information to review
respondent’s determination.
3. Scheduling of the Section 6330 Hearing and Deadline for
Submission of Information
Petitioners argue that Ms. Cochran abused her discretion by
not allowing their counsel additional time to prepare for the
section 6330 hearing and to submit additional information. Once
the section 6330 hearing was scheduled, Ms. Cochran refused
petitioners’ request to delay the hearing. However, Ms. Cochran
did extend the deadline for submission of information.
While petitioners wanted to delay the section 6330 hearing,
they do not allege that they were unable to adequately prepare
for the hearing. Additionally, petitioners have not identified
any documents or other information that they believe Ms. Cochran
should have considered but that they were unable to produce
because of the deadline for submission. Given the thoroughness
19 While sec. 7491 shifts the burden of proof and/or the
burden of production to the Commissioner in certain
circumstances, this section is not applicable in this case
because respondent’s examination of petitioners’ returns did not
commence after July 22, 1998. See Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec.
3001(c), 112 Stat. 727.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011