- 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
process.
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