- 9 -
Although not altogether clear, petitioners may be alleging in
their petition that the Appeals Office’s refusal to allow them to
continue making an audio recording of their Appeals Office
hearing held on May 6, 2002, was improper under section
7521(a)(1). Except for that possible argument under section
7521(a)(1), the petition contains statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivolous
and/or groundless.8
Discussion
The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no
genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as
a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). We
conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact
regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.
A taxpayer may raise challenges to the existence or the
amount of the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability if the taxpayer
did not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have
an opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly
8The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests in petitioners’ petition are very similar
to the frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests in petitions filed by certain other
taxpayers with cases in the Court. See, e.g., Copeland v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-46; Smith v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-45.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011