- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011