- 20 -
Petitioners, however, decided to petition the Tax Court based on
our decision in Meyer v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417 (2000). In
both their petition and amended petition, petitioners state that
in a similar case (Meyer) this Court assumed jurisdiction. Their
argument is not that we have jurisdiction to review a
determination regarding a section 6702 penalty but that they were
not provided a hearing. Further, petitioners contend that in a
similar case involving a section 6702 penalty (Meyer) the Court
held that we had jurisdiction to review whether the taxpayer was
provided a hearing.
The following colloquies took place at the hearing on the
motion:
THE COURT: That’s right. I’ve seen the file. Do you want to
say anything this morning on behalf of the motion
or in opposition to the motion?
PETITIONER: Judge, I’ve sent in an objection to the motion
that technically the Court does not have
jurisdiction regarding frivolous penalties, but it
does have jurisdiction based on the Meyer case,
which I cited in my objection, that this is a
matter of not receiving a due-process hearing * *
* We did ask for the hearing within the 30 days
and did not get the hearing when a determination
was made.
* * *
THE COURT: Mr. Johnson is not speaking this morning to the
merit of the position he’s taking. He’s saying
that, regardless of the merit of the position,
he’s entitled to a hearing. Is that correct Mr.
Johnson?
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