Roger D. and Mary M. Catlow - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          (9th Cir. 2006).  Nor do we usually consider arguments, issues,             
          or other matters raised for the first time at trial, but we limit           
          ourselves to matter brought to the attention of Appeals.                    
          See Murphy v. Commissioner, supra at 308; Magana v. Commissioner,           
          118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002).  “[E]vidence that * * * [a taxpayer]              
          might have presented at the section 6330 hearing (but chose not             
          to) is not admissible in a trial conducted pursuant to section              
          6330(d)(1) because it is not relevant to the question of whether            
          the Appeals officer abused her discretion.”  Murphy v.                      
          Commissioner, supra at 315.12                                               
               Section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii) allows a taxpayer to offer to               
          compromise a Federal tax debt as a collection alternative to a              
          proposed levy.  Section 7122(c) authorizes the Commissioner to              

               12 In Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301 (2005), affd.               
          469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006), the Court declined to include in the           
          record external evidence relating to facts not presented to                 
          Appeals.  The Court distinguished Robinette v. Commissioner,                
          123 T.C. 85 (2004), revd. 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006), and held            
          that the external evidence was inadmissible in that it was not              
          relevant to the issue of whether Appeals abused its discretion.             
          In a memorandum that petitioners filed with the Court on Apr. 13,           
          2006, pursuant to an order of the Court directing petitioners to            
          explain the relevancy of any external evidence that they desired            
          to include in the record of this case, petitioners made no claim            
          that they had offered any of the external evidence to Cochran.              
          Instead, as we read petitioners’ memorandum in the light of the             
          record as a whole, petitioners wanted to include the external               
          evidence in the record of this case to prove that Cochran abused            
          her discretion by not considering facts and documents that they             
          had consciously decided not to give to her.  Consistent with                
          Murphy v. Commissioner, supra, we sustained respondent’s                    
          relevancy objections to the external evidence.  Accord Clayton v.           
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-188; Barnes v. Commissioner, T.C.             
          Memo. 2006-150.                                                             




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011