- 57 -
Appeals hearing. The difference on which the majority relies to
support its remand in the instant case is a distinction without
significance. We have previously reminded taxpayers who
institute proposed levy (and lien) cases in the Court that Rule
331(b)(4) requires a petition for review of a determination under
section 6330 to contain clear and concise assignments of “each
and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been
committed in the levy determination”, Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 183 (2000), and that that Rule provides that “any issue
not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be
conceded”, id. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra at 190.
By remanding the instant case to Appeals for a hearing that
petitioner may audio record, the majority is allowing petitioner
to raise issues that he did not raise or plead, as required by
Rule 331. The only complaint that petitioner has about his
rights under section 6330, as set forth in the petition in the
instant case, is that he was not allowed to make an audio
recording of his Appeals Office hearing under section 6330(b).
Certainly, petitioner does not intend to argue at the Appeals
hearing ordered by the majority that Appeals erred in refusing to
permit him to make an audio recording of the hearing that Appeals
previously offered to him. So what will petitioner argue at the
hearing mandated by the majority? Given petitioner’s track
record of advancing frivolous and/or groundless contentions and
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