- 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