Ralph Tashjian - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
          requested the records and that they were never returned.                    
          Petitioner states that DiRicco was in possession of certain of              
          petitioner’s records and that DiRicco failed to return those                
          records to petitioner, as they were allegedly stored in a                   
          contaminated storage area and could not be recovered.  Petitioner           
          contends that the records that he has not recovered would show              
          that Isgro made some contributions to the partnerships on his               
          behalf but without his knowledge and that they would show his               
          percentage interest in the partnerships.  Because he was unable             
          to retrieve the records, petitioner argues, he was unable to                
          contact other partners or to intervene in the litigation.                   
          Petitioner contends that the failure to return petitioner’s                 
          records was a violation of his due process rights.                          
               We do not see how any of the records seized by the IRS                 
          during its criminal investigation of him are relevant to the                
          adjustments made to the partnerships that affected the                      
          assessments against petitioner.  Petitioner testified that the              
          documents that were taken were personal in nature and had nothing           
          to do with the partnerships.  The documents contained in the                
          record, such as Forms 1040, Schedules K-1, Partner’s Share of               
          Income, Credits, Deductions, etc., the notice of intent to levy,            
          and the notice of determination, are more than adequate to decide           
          the issues in this case.  Petitioner has failed to show that not            
          being able to access his records constitutes a denial of due                

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011