- 13 -
125 T.C. 301, 308, 320 (2005), affd. 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006).
Where we decide the propriety of Appeals’s rejection of an
offer-in-compromise, as we do here, we review the reasoning
underlying that rejection to decide whether the rejection was
arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
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; 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 315.6
6 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
(continued...)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007