- 18 -
refused to proceed when denied the opportunity to record, and we
remanded the case to allow a recorded Appeals hearing. Id.
In contrast, again as noted in the Court’s September 15,
2004, order, we have distinguished, and declined to remand, cases
where the taxpayer had participated in an Appeals Office hearing,
albeit unrecorded, and where all issues raised by the taxpayer
could be properly decided from the existing record. E.g., id. at
19-20; Frey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-87; Durrenberger v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-44; Brashear v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-196; Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.
Stated otherwise, cases will not be remanded to Appeals, nor
determinations otherwise invalidated, merely on account of the
lack of a recording when to do so is not necessary and would not
be productive. See, e.g., Frey v. Commissioner, supra;
Durrenberger v. Commissioner, supra; Brashear v. Commissioner,
supra; Kemper v. Commissioner, supra; see also Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001). A principal scenario
falling short of the necessary or productive standard exists
where the taxpayers rely on frivolous or groundless arguments
consistently rejected by this and other courts. See, e.g., Frey
v. Commissioner, supra; Brashear v. Commissioner, supra; Kemper
v. Commissioner, supra.
Because no hearing had been conducted at all in petitioners’
case, we declined to grant respondent’s motion for summary
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011