Curtis B. Keene - Page 36

                                       - 36 -                                         
               Recent cases in the Federal District Courts have treated               
          taxpayers’ requests to tape record CDP Appeals hearings as                  
          discretionary with the IRS and have treated taxpayers’ refusals             
          to participate in the CDP Appeals hearings unless they were                 
          permitted to tape record these hearings as a waiver of the                  
          taxpayers’ right to a face-to-face hearing.  See Muhammad v.                
          United States, 91 AFTR 2d 1985, at 1987 (D.S.C. 2003); Henry v.             
          Bronstein, 90 AFTR 2d 7134, at 7135, 2002-2 USTC par. 50,781, at            
          86,147 (D. Md. 2002).  In one recent case, Rennie v. IRS,                   
          216 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2002), the District Court also              
          noted the mischief taxpayers may create with amateur, uncertified           
          transcripts of Appeals hearings, stating as follows:                        

               Also attached to the Complaint is what purports to be a                
               transcript of the Collection Due Process Hearing.  The                 
               hearing was tape recorded by plaintiff and he has                      
               prepared the transcript of it.  The transcript is not                  
               certified.  Moreover, from the court’s research, the                   
               Collection Due Process hearings are supposed to be                     
               informal and there is not [a] requirement that the                     
               hearings be recorded.  [Id. at 1079 n.1.]                              

          Frivolous Arguments                                                         
               Keene’s frivolous arguments are well documented.  In an                
          attachment to Keene’s CDP Appeals hearing request, Keene provides           
          a detailed, single-spaced, multipage explanation of the                     
          underlying arguments for his appeal of respondent’s proposed                
          collection action.  Keene’s lengthy explanation is full of                  
          scripted, frivolous, tax protester arguments.  Therein, Keene               

Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011