- 9 -
case,” including the accuracy and relative importance of alleged
facts in the case, and the “originating function’s perception of
the demeanor or credibility of the taxpayer or taxpayer’s
representative.” Id., Q&A-5, 2000-2 C.B. at 405-06.
There can’t be any suspense in our holding on this point--
the cover letter sent to Talbott that accompanied the
administrative file was precisely the sort of prohibited ex parte
contact that the Commissioner and Congress wanted to ban. It put
the revenue officer’s spin on what he thought of Wells and
Industrial, and blatantly advocated a particular result. In two
recent cases, Drake v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 201 (2005), and
Moore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-171, we held that
communications very similar to the cover letter in this case were
likewise prohibited ex parte communications. Drake featured a
memorandum by an IRS employee telling the Appeals officer that he
believed the taxpayer and her attorney had used the Bankruptcy
Court to bypass a federal tax lien and get their hands on the
proceeds from a sale of their encumbered property. Drake, 125
T.C. at 203. Moore featured two IRS employees who both tried to
be helpful by suggesting that the Appeals officer consider a
nominee theory and look at the taxpayer’s “money stream.” Moore,
supra.
The cover letter here is full of similarly “helpful”
suggestions: telling Talbott he shouldn’t consider a CDP hearing
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007