- 13 -
contains statements, contentions, and arguments that the Court
finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.9
We turn to petitioners’ argument under section 7521(a)(1)
that the refusal by the Appeals Office to permit petitioners to
make an audio recording of the Appeals Office hearing held on
August 29, 2002, was improper. Throughout the period commencing
with petitioners’ filing their 1995 joint return with respondent
and ending with their filing petitioners’ response with the
Court, petitioners have made statements and requests and advanced
contentions, arguments, and questions that the Court has found to
be frivolous and/or groundless. Consequently, even though we
held in Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. __ (2003), that section
7521(a)(1) requires the Appeals Office to allow a taxpayer to
make an audio recording of an Appeals Office hearing held pursu-
ant to section 6330(b), we conclude that (1) it is not necessary
and will not be productive to remand this case to the Appeals
9The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
and arguments in petitioners’ response are similar to the types
of frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and
arguments in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in
the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty
under sec. 6673 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in
such other cases. See, e.g., Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-45.
Although not altogether clear, petitioners’ response may
also be raising the argument under sec. 7521(a) advanced in the
petition that respondent’s refusal to allow petitioners to make
an audio recording of the Appeals Office hearing held on Aug. 29,
2002, was improper.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011