- 55 -
6320(b)) when it made section 7521 part of the Code in 1988.
Moreover, as also discussed above, the desirability in certain
circumstances of having a transcript of a section 6330 hearing
(and a section 6320 hearing) does not answer the question
whether, and does not logically lead to the conclusion that,
section 7521 mandates that a taxpayer have the right to make an
audio recording of a hearing before Appeals.
Having held that section 7521(a)(1) requires respondent to
allow petitioner to make an audio recording of his section
6330(b) hearing, the majority concludes:
we shall remand this case to respondent’s Appeals
Office with direction that petitioner be offered a
section 6330 hearing that may be audio recorded
pursuant to section 7521(a)(1).[7]
Majority op. pp. 17-18.
The result mandated by the majority is that respondent must offer
another hearing under section 6330 to petitioner, who, according
to the majority, has a long history of advancing tax-protester
7In reaching the result to remand for an Appeals hearing
that petitioner may audio record, the majority relies on
respondent’s acknowledgment that if the Court were to decide the
audio recording issue against respondent, the proper action would
be to remand the case and allow petitioner to have a hearing that
he may audio record. Respondent’s position as to what the Court
should do if it were to hold against respondent on the issue
presented under sec. 7521(a)(1) is not binding on the Court and
does not justify remanding the case to Appeals. The Court has
never hesitated in the past, and the majority should not have
hesitated in the instant case, to reject the IRS’s (or the
taxpayer’s) view of what the proper action should be in the event
that the Court were to resolve an issue adversely to that party.
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011