- 18 -
petitioner be offered a section 6330 hearing that may be audio
recorded pursuant to section 7521(a)(1). We shall withhold
action on respondent’s motion for summary judgment to permit the
record to be supplemented. In ordering this remand, we admonish
petitioner that, if he persists in making frivolous and
groundless tax protester arguments at the audio recorded hearing
rather than raising relevant issues, as specified in section
6330(c)(2), relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, the
Court will grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and
impose a penalty against him pursuant to section 6673(a)(1). See
Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 580-581 (2000); Keene v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-277.
Our conclusion in this case that petitioner is entitled to
audio record his section 6330 hearing with the Appeals Office is
not inconsistent with Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
195, decided this day. Indeed, the two cases are different. In
Kemper, the taxpayers chose to participate in the Appeals Office
hearing, and, subsequently, in filing their petition with this
Court, they included not only a section 7521(a)(1) argument, but
also arguments that were frivolous or groundless. By contrast,
no Appeals Office hearing was held in this case because of
petitioner’s insistence that it be recorded, and the petition
raised only the section 7521(a)(1) issue. Because of the narrow
scope of the pleadings in the present case, respondent has
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