Opinion ID: 804193
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Robinsons’ Claims on Appeal

Text: Initially, the Robinsons claim that the IRS improperly denied them an extension of time to prepare and produce documents for their audit. In the November and December 3 2007 letters, the IRS requested substantiation of the expenses the Robinsons claimed as deductions. During the course of the examination, the Robinsons never presented any substantiating documentation. On April 25, 2008, the Robinsons’ tax representative requested a thirty-day extension, which the IRS declined. The Robinsons argue that by not allowing their representative the extension to prepare for the audit, the IRS essentially denied them both an audit and representation. The Robinsons’ argument is unavailing. They had over six months to produce the requested documents. Moreover, the Robinsons admit that they weighed the costs of obtaining counsel to represent them in the Tax Court, and decided to proceed pro se in the hope that the parties would settle the matter. Their assertion that the IRS retaliated against them by refusing to settle is conclusory, and, in any event, the IRS had no duty to settle with them. The Robinsons also claim that the Tax Court should have shifted the burden of proof to the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1). Under § 7491(a)(1), if a taxpayer presents credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the liability of the taxpayer, and substantiates that evidence and cooperates with the IRS, the burden of proof does shift to the IRS. The Robinsons assert that they produced “voluminous” records, and that the IRS and Tax Court “cherry picked” examples that did not appear to be business related. We agree with the Tax Court that such burden shifting was unwarranted because, as discussed below, the Robinsons presented no credible evidence to substantiate their claimed deductions and expenses.