- 15 -
some of which are on appeal. Those issues relate to the effect
of Hoyt’s fraud and the years of delay in resolving tax
liabilities of his investors. In addition, petitioners argue:
the other issues that are substantially the same or
identical are how to treat * * * elderly and retired
individuals. Does Respondent need to make some–-does
Respondent need to estimate their basic needs for their
life span? That is probably the overreaching [sic]
issue in a number of the cases where we have elderly
and retired individuals. So an answer to that would
probably answer this case as well.
Respondent has objected to some of the exhibits on the
grounds of hearsay and to others on the grounds that they are not
relevant because they were not presented to the Appeals officer
during the exchanges that constituted the section 6330 hearing.
See Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006);
Murphy v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 301 (2005), affd. 469 F.3d 27
(1st Cir. 2006); Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493
(2002). We sustain the objections because, even if the exhibits
are considered for nonhearsay purposes and are relevant, they
constitute needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Section 7122(c) and (d) provides as follows:
SEC. 7122(c). Standards for Evaluation of
Offers.--
(1) In general.–-The Secretary shall
prescribe guidelines for officers and employees of
the Internal Revenue Service to determine whether
an offer-in-compromise is adequate and should be
accepted to resolve a dispute.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008