Curtis B. Keene - Page 38

                                       - 38 -                                         
               At the most, if some delay is to be tolerated in disposing             
          of Keene’s petition challenging respondent’s proposed collection            
          action, an order should be issued asking Keene to advise the                
          Court in writing, within a specified time period, what underlying           
          arguments he would make (if he were given another opportunity to            
          have a CDP Appeals hearing and to have the hearing recorded) that           
          are not already reflected in the referred-to written attachment             
          to his CDP hearing request.  If Keene files a response to such an           
          order containing only frivolous arguments, this case could easily           
          be disposed of without ever addressing the legal issue raised               
          under section 7521(a)(1).                                                   
               I acknowledge that, in the few nonprotester CDP cases that             
          seem to exist, recorded transcripts of CDP Appeals hearings may             
          be helpful, and nothing that we adopt in the Kemper or Keene                
          opinions will prevent the IRS and taxpayers from agreeing to                
          record CDP Appeals hearings in appropriate situations.                      
               In summary, to conclude that the IRS should be required to             
          record CDP Appeals hearings or to permit taxpayers to record such           
          hearings -- whenever taxpayers make such requests and regardless            
          of how difficult the taxpayers and how frivolous their underlying           
          arguments -- strikes me as contrary to the above regulations, as            
          inappropriate judicial meddling with respondent’s Appeals                   
          hearings, as inefficient use of judicial resources, and as                  
          conducive to further delay in the collection of taxes the Federal           
          Government desperately needs.                                               

Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011