Gary and Johnean Hansen - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          We do not substitute our judgment for that of Appeals, and we do            
          not decide independently the amount that we believe would be an             
          acceptable offer-in-compromise.  See Murphy v. Commissioner,                
          supra at 320; see also Clayton v. Commissioner, supra; Barnes v.            
          Commissioner, supra; Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-163;           
          Fargo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-13, affd. 447 F.3d 706               
          (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 315.10                                               

               10 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 April              
          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           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011