I must respectfully express sympathy with Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins, as she tries to unscramble the documentary frittata concocted by the wily rep of Richard A. Davanzo, Docket No. 7248-24L, filed 10/30/26. And thanks, Judge, for not calling the rep a “POA.”
This CDP comes from a rejected IA and is the second in a series of Davanzo cases, on the first of which Judge Jenkins casts judicial notice with a lengthy explanation of the bases therefor.
The administrative record, the lodestone and beacon star of all CDPs (except maybe in 8 Cir, although this is a Golsenized 3 Cir case; see Order, at p. 2, footnote 2), must allow Judge Jenkins to sort out what Appeals did (or didn’t), so after a ten (count ’em, ten) page trek through a paper-and-electron barrage, interspersed with referrals to ARI (Appeals Referral Investigation) and Collection interjections, a NOD, a remand, and a supplemental NOD, it turns out (spoiler alert) that Judge Jenkins can’t figure out whether Appeals leaned too heavily on what Collections told them.
“The Administrative Record in this case suggests some confusing handling by the IRS of petitioner’s many unpaid tax liabilities. Petitioner compounded the problems by consistently failing to timely provide complete current financial information and, it seems, not communicating particularly effectively with the appropriate arm of the IRS at the appropriate juncture. And if this Court could determine that Appeals had reasonably fulfilled its obligations in evaluating petitioner’s IA request, petitioner’s efforts to browbeat IRS personnel and belabor his case would have been in vain. However, given the significant holes and inconsistencies in the Administrative Record, this Court cannot, at this juncture, conclude that Appeals did not abuse its discretion.” Order, at p. 16.
“Browbeat and belabor,” Judge? When does effective advocacy cross the line?
Anyway, back again to Appeals, with a heartfelt admonition from Judge Jenkins, who must feel that she has been browbeaten and belabored.
“Accordingly, this Court will remand this case for yet another supplemental CDP hearing, in which this Court can only hope both petitioner and Appeals will endeavor to ameliorate their past failures.” Order, at pp. 16-17.
The record ruler, which is supposed to “expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials,” can turn out to be as bad a tyrant as the one it supposedly supplants.
