- 58 -
arguments as to why he does not owe any tax, it is reasonable to
presume that he will be advancing at that hearing those same
types of frivolous and/or groundless contentions and arguments.
In Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra, the Court did not give
the taxpayers the benefit of the doubt that they would abandon
their frivolous and/or groundless arguments if they had the
opportunity for another hearing. Nonetheless, the majority in
the instant case is giving petitioner the benefit of the doubt by
requiring Appeals to hold a hearing that petitioner may audio
record because the majority presumes that, despite petitioner’s
long history of advancing tax-protester types of contentions and
arguments, he might decide to advance at such a hearing
contentions and arguments that have some basis in the facts and
the law. I do not believe that the majority should have given
the benefit of the doubt to petitioner. The majority should have
required petitioner to amend his petition or otherwise advise the
Court what contentions and arguments he intends to make at an
Appeals hearing so that the Court could have determined whether
such contentions and arguments are frivolous and/or groundless.
Only if the Court were to determine that such contentions and
arguments have a basis in the facts and the law should the
majority have remanded the matter to Appeals for a hearing that
the majority has held section 7521(a)(1) requires petitioner be
given the opportunity to audio record. By not requiring before
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