Curtis B. Keene - Page 37

                                       - 37 -                                         
          claims that his rights as a taxpayer were ignored by the IRS from           
          the beginning, and he asserts that the only acceptable remedy is            
          for the IRS to “start all over again”.  He states as follows:               

               The IRS has ignored most of my rights even though I                    
               have pointed this out, in detail, time after time in                   
               letters originating as far back as 11/7/1991.  I have                  
               carefully documented the IRS’ total disregard of my                    
               rights to date.  Should the IRS deny this request for a                
               due process hearing it will only be adding to the                      
               overwhelming evidence I have accumulated showing the                   
               IRS’ illegal denial of my rights to hearings and                       
               Now, should you [the Appeals officer], finally decide                  
               to grant me a simple hearing at this very late stage in                
               the due process system I will expect you to find that                  
               this entire matter, for the tax period 1040 ending                     
               12/31/1991, be remanded back to the very beginning of                  
               this process.  This remand must go back to include all                 
               of the hearings and all of the information due me as                   
               outlined in my previous letters.  Otherwise my rights                  
               will have been violated.  * * *                                        

               The written explanation attached to Keene’s CDP hearing                
          request itself provides the Court with an adequate record of                
          Keene’s arguments that serve as the underlying basis for his                
          challenge to respondent’s proposed collection action.  A tape               
          recording to establish that record is not necessary.  It is                 
          overwhelmingly clear that there is no merit to Keene’s underlying           
          arguments, and I believe that, under Lunsford v. Commissioner,              
          117 T.C. 183 (2001), this Court ought to dispose of Keene’s                 
          challenge to respondent’s proposed collection action summarily              
          and without deciding the section 7521(a)(1) issue (i.e., the                
          approach taken in Kemper v. Commissioner, supra).                           

Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011