- 6 -
Consistent with the approach taken by respondent’s
settlement officer, rational thought suggests that the dispute
between the parties is easily resolved by the production of a
canceled check or other bank record evidencing the amount of the
payment. In the absence of any such bank records, however, we
are called upon to weigh petitioner’s testimony on the point
against respondent’s records, which if only by implication
petitioner claims to be inaccurate.
If respondent’s records are inaccurate, the supposed
inaccuracy surfaced in January 1997, only months after
petitioner’s 1995 return was filed. Then, rather than now, would
have been the time to challenge those records. A timely
challenge, no doubt, could have been resolved by examination of
the bank records that petitioner now claims cannot be obtained.
Under the circumstances, we are more persuaded by
respondent’s records than petitioner’s claim that her 1995 tax
liability was fully paid with the filing of her 1995 return.
Furthermore, because petitioner did not claim entitlement to
abatements of interest and additions to tax at the administrative
level, we will not entertain her claims for such relief made for
the first time in this proceeding. See Miller v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 582, 589 n.2 (2000), affd. 21 Fed. Appx. 160 (4th Cir.
2001); Bruce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-161; Bourbeau v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007