- 19 -
incorporated by the clerk’s office in the Court’s case record.
Respondent now prepares the record presumably in accordance with
section 301.6330-1(f), Q&A-F4, Proced. & Admin. Regs., which
clarified Office of Chief Counsel Notice CC-2006-019 (Aug. 18,
2006). That Office of Chief Counsel Notice had incorporated and
superseded Office of Chief Counsel Notice CC-2006-008 (Dec. 27,
2005), and updated and replaced Office of Chief Counsel Notice
CC-2003-016 (May 29, 2003). Errors in the record will
inevitably occur from time to time, given the large number of
records, their complexity, and the number of people participating
in the various stages of the collection due process (CDP)
procedures.
Where the accuracy of the administrative record is
challenged by a party, it is ultimately up to the Court to
determine the accuracy and completeness of the administrative
record.1 To make this determination the Court may hold an
evidentiary hearing to explore and document whether relevant
material below was excluded from the record and/or the record was
inappropriately augmented after the Appeals Office hearing and
1 Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744
(1985); Franklin Sav. Association v. Dir., Office of Thrift
Supervision, 934 F.2d 1127, 1137 (10th Cir. 1991); Thompson v.
U.S. Dept. of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555-556 (9th Cir. 1989);
Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301, 311 (2005), affd. 469 F.3d
27 (1st Cir. 2006); ITT Fed. Servs. Corp. v. United States, 45
Fed. Cl. 174, 185 (1999); O’Toole v. U.S. Secy. of Agric.; 471 F.
Supp. 2d 1323, 1328-1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007