- 10 - placed at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Although petitioners did not receive a notice of deficiency with respect to their taxable years 1997 and 1998, the Court finds the contentions and arguments which petitioners advanced in their petition and which challenge the existence or the amount of petitioners’ unpaid liabilities for 1997 and 1998 to be frivolous and/or groundless. We now turn to the remaining issues that petitioners raised at their Appeals Office hearing and in the petition with respect to petitioners’ notices of determination, which we shall review for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner, supra. As was true of petitioners’ attach- ment to Form 12153, petitioners’ explanation for their amended 1997 joint return, and petitioners’ explanation for their amended 1998 joint return, petitioners’ petition, except for a possible argument under section 7521(a)(1), contains statements, conten- tions, arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivo- lous and/or groundless. We turn to petitioners’ possible argument under section 7521(a)(1) that the refusal by the Appeals Office to permit petitioners to continue to make an audio recording of the AppealsPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011