Curtis B. Keene - Page 18

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011