- 11 -
Office hearing held on May 6, 2002, was improper.9 Throughout
the period commencing with petitioners’ filing their 1997 joint
return with respondent and ending with their filing the petition
with the Court, petitioners have made statements and requests and
advanced contentions and arguments that the Court has found to be
frivolous and/or groundless. Consequently, even though we
recently held in Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. __ (2003), that
section 7521(a)(1) requires the Appeals Office to allow a tax-
payer to make an audio recording of an Appeals Office hearing
held pursuant to section 6330(b), we conclude that (1) it is not
necessary and will not be productive to remand this case to the
Appeals Office for another hearing under section 6320(b) in order
to allow petitioners to make such an audio recording, see
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001), and (2) it is
not necessary or appropriate to reject respondent’s determination
to proceed with the collection action as determined in petition-
ers’ notices of determination with respect to petitioners’ unpaid
liabilities for 1997 and 1998, see id.10
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in
9We note that the record does not establish that petitioners
complied with the requirement of sec. 7521(a)(1) that they
present respondent with their request to make an audio recording
of their Appeals Office hearing in advance of that hearing.
10See Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011