- 39 -
CHIECHI, J., dissenting: In holding that section 7521(a)(1)
requires respondent to allow petitioner to make an audio
recording of his section 6330(b) Appeals Office hearing, the
majority fails to apply the rules of statutory construction on
which the majority claims to rely. In remanding this case to
Appeals in order to allow petitioner to have a hearing that he
may audio record, the majority has rewarded the delaying tactics
of petitioner, who has a long history of raising frivolous and/or
groundless reasons why he claims he owes no Federal income tax
(tax),1 has rewarded his noncompliance with Rule 331, and has
caused an unwarranted delay in the instant proceedings. I
dissent from all the actions of the majority.
In order to resolve the issue whether section 7521(a)(1)
requires respondent to allow petitioner to make an audio
recording of his section 6330(b) Appeals Office hearing, it is
necessary to determine whether the phrase “in-person interview”
used in that section includes a hearing before Appeals under
section 6330(b) (and section 6320(b)). In order to resolve that
question, it first is necessary to determine whether section
7521(a)(1) requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to allow a
taxpayer to make an audio recording of a hearing or conference
1As an illustration of petitioner’s past conduct, see Keene
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-277, where the Court granted
summary judgment and imposed a penalty under sec. 6673(a)(1) in
the amount of $5,000.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011