- 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
(continued...)
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