- 13 -
parties do not address that allegation in their respective
motions, we shall dispose of that matter at this time. That is
because we conclude that, as a matter of law, there was no abuse
of discretion regardless whether petitioner had the opportunity
before or at the Appeals Office hearing (1) to examine the
document that he requested (i.e., Form 23C) and the document that
the Appeals officer provided to petitioner with the notice of
determination (i.e., Form 4340) or (2) to cross-examine wit-
nesses. See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162 (2002); Davis
v. Commissioner, supra at 41-42.11
Based on our examination of the entire record before us, we
find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in
determining in the notice of determination to proceed with
collection with respect to petitioner’s taxable year 1996.
In respondent’s motion, respondent requests that the Court
require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant
to section 6673(a)(1). Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court
to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty in an
amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court
that, inter alia, a proceeding before it was instituted or
maintained primarily for delay, sec. 6673(a)(1)(A), or the
taxpayer's position in such a proceeding is frivolous or ground-
11See also Lindsay v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-285;
Watson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-213; Wylie v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-65.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011