George R. and Karen S. Kemper - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               The taxpayer raised no non-frivolous issues.  The                      
               information previously submitted by the taxpayers was                  
               reviewed, and in that material Karen Kemper raised no                  
               non-filer issues.                                                      
               Balancing the Need for Efficient Collection with Tax-                  
               payer Concerns                                                         
               The requirements of all applicable laws and administra-                
               tive procedures have been met.  The taxpayers received                 
               their required notices.  At the hearing, Appeals raised                
               collection alternatives with George Kemper, but he was                 
               not interested.  Given the taxpayers’ continued non-                   
               compliance, the government should be allowed to proceed                
               with its proposed enforcement action, its intent to                    
               levy on tax periods 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998.  Lacking                
               the taxpayers’ cooperation, the proposed collection                    
               action balances the need for efficient collection with                 
               the taxpayer’s concern that any collection action be no                
               more intrusive than necessary.  [Reproduced literally]                 
               On October 29, 2002, petitioners filed a petition with the             
          Court for review of petitioners’ notices of determination only              
          insofar as those notices relate to petitioners’ unpaid liabili-             
          ties for 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.  Except for an argument                
          under section 7521(a)(1), the petition contains statements,                 
          contentions, arguments, and questions that the Court finds to be            
          frivolous and/or groundless.7  With respect to section                      
          7521(a)(1), petitioners allege in the petition that the Appeals             
          Office refused to allow them to make an audio recording of the              
          Appeals Office hearing held on August 29, 2002, and that that               

               7The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,              
          arguments, and questions in petitioners’ petition are very                  
          similar to the frivolous and/or groundless statements, conten-              
          tions, arguments, and questions in petitions filed by certain               
          other taxpayers with cases in the Court.  See, e.g., Keown v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-69.                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011